User:Music1201/CVUA/Yavorpenchev
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Course closed due to inactivity
Hello, welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your academy page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me at my talk page.
Make sure you read through Wikipedia:Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.
- How to use this page
This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.
- Once you graduate I will copy this page into your userspace so you have a record of your training and a reference for the future.
The start[edit]
Twinkle[edit]
Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.
- Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.
- I've enabled it a long time ago and have used it for way more than just vandalism-fighting, as my contributions page shows. Feel free to take a look! :-D
I enabled twinkle a long time ago indeed.
Good faith and vandalism[edit]
When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. It is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labelling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.
Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
A good faith edit is often made by someone new to our community who is unaware of our policies. For example, they may just be breaking the syntax of the article with a test edit, failing to provide a reliable source, or adding a spam or inappropriate link (as long as they don't do it over and over again, for that would be vandalism). On the other hand, a vandalism edit is made by someone who intentionally wants to cause damage and harm to the encyclopedia. They may do things like replacing large blocks of content with gibberish, insert slang or insults into serious pages, or even create pages with nonsense or move existing pages to nonsense titles. It especially becomes clear-cut when they do it repeatedly, which shows their intent to abuse their editing privileges and can lead to a block from editing.
- Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. You don't need to revert the example you find, and I am happy for you to use previous undos in your edit history if you wish.
- Good faith
On the page Tornadoes of 2015 I made a number of decorative enhancements by correcting improper usage of words and/or grammar in cases where the structuring of sentences did not make sense. The mistakes were minuscule and it was obvious that they were not the actions of a vandal (or vandals).
On the page 1962 Soviet nuclear tests, a user made a change to an edit of mine which didn't seem to be constructive. I had noticed that test number 220 had been omitted and added it, only to find it removed. Since I reverted the edit to no further opposition, I'd assume that the edit was a mistake: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1962_Soviet_nuclear_tests&diff=prev&oldid=718117413
On the page Lowest temperature recorded on Earth, in three consecutive edits, I participated in a mini edit war where I changed the wording of a statement. I read the source cited and found that the author of the edits had misinterpreted it. We eventually settled for an edit that contained both our views on how the statement ought to be worded (the last link): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lowest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth&diff=prev&oldid=700470129 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lowest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth&diff=prev&oldid=700480946 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lowest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth&diff=prev&oldid=700483520.
mezil (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Yavorpenchev: Remember that edit-warring should never occur (see the three revert rule). Reverting obvious blatant vandalism over and over does not count as edit-warring. The diffs you provided for good faith editing were
Good. — Music1201 talk 04:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Vandalism
On the page Tornadoes of 2016, a template for the table of tornadoes and their Enhanced Fujita scale rating was not closed, resulting in an edit that was not constructive; The table also had made up figures put next to the number of tornadoes by strength, which looked to be a case of vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tornadoes_of_2016&diff=prev&oldid=718741684
On the page April 2015 Nepal earthquake, I found a series of vandal edits, including: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=April_2015_Nepal_earthquake&diff=660060441&oldid=660060426, where an "I LOVE BOOBS" statement was inserted, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=April_2015_Nepal_earthquake&diff=659719128&oldid=659718471. Tha later includes foul language and is an instance of blatant vandalism.
On the same page, another case of vandalism occurred: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=April_2015_Nepal_earthquake&diff=660040943&oldid=660040518.
mezil (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Yavorpenchev: The first example you provided under vandalism is a good faith edit, not blatant vandalism. Please read over WP:Vandalism so that you have a better understanding between good-faith edits and vandalism. Just because an edit is unconstructive, doesn't mean it is vandalism. The first link you provided ([1]) was clearly not an attempt to vandalize Wikipedia, it was just a mistake. The next 2 links you provided are good examples of vandalism. Please provide one more example of vandalism so that I know we're ready to move onto the next step. — Music1201 talk 04:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Yavorpenchev: Good. Just as a reminder, when providing diffs to vandalism, make sure to use the diff in which the vandalism actually occurred (not the reversion). — Music1201 talk 22:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Yavorpenchev:
Warning and reporting[edit]
When you use Twinkle to warn a user, you have a number of options to choose from: you can select the kind of warning (for different offences), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4, for increasing severity). Knowing which warning to issue and what level is very important. Further information can be found at WP:WARN and WP:UWUL.
- Please answer the following questions:
| Question | Answer | Approved? |
|---|---|---|
| Why do we warn users? | To notify them if and when their editing actions are unconstructive and/or plainly disruptive. We warn users in cases of both blatant vandalism and good faith edits that failed to constitute a fruitful contribution due to a user's lack of editing experience. | |
| When would a 4im warning be appropriate? | In cases of blatant vandalism, such as inappropriate use of humor, wrongful information that aims to discredit or in any way harm the reputation of a person/entity. | |
| Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it? | All generic warning and welcome templates on user talk pages should be substituted. For a warning, you would use {{subst:templatename}} and for welcomes you'd use user-specific welcome templates, instead of a generic, non-personal welcome template. | |
| What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again? | Given that both level 4 and level 4im templates have the status of final warnings, I would raise the issue to an administrator so that he be either blocked or given further warning. |
- Please give examples (using
{{Tlsubst|''name of template''}}) of three different warnings (not different levels of the same warning and excluding the test edit warning levels referred to below), that you might need to use while recent changes patrolling and explain what they are used for.
| Template | What is it used for? | Approved? |
|---|---|---|
| {{subst:uw-joke4}} | Warning users that further usage of inappropriate humor could result in a block. The warning is given after previous notices of lower severity, differentiating it from the 4im template which is an only, last resort warning used in cases of blatant vandalism. | |
| {{subst:uw-spam1}} | Used as a first notice template for users who have added sources that appear to be unrelated to the subject at hand and could constitute disguised advertisements of websites, companies or individuals . | |
| {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} | Used as a first actual warning, after a welcome notice and invitation to experiment in sandbox outlined by the template {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}. |
Make sure you keep in mind that some edits that seem like vandalism can be test edits. This happens when a new user is experimenting and makes accidental unconstructive edits. Generally, these should be treated with good faith, especially if it is their first time, and warned gently. The following templates are used for test edits: {{subst:uw-test1}}, {{subst:uw-test2}} and {{subst:uw-test3}}.
I just wanted to make sure you know about Special:RecentChanges, if you use the diff link in a different window or tab you can check a number of revisions much more easily. If you enable Hovercards in the Hover section of your preferences, you can view the diff by just hovering over it. Alternately, you can press control-F or command-F and search for "tag:". some edits get tagged for possible vandalism or section blanking.
- Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Please include at least two test edits and at least two appropriate reports to AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below
| # | Diff of revert | Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff | Approved? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |||
| 2 | |||
| 3 | |||
| 4 | |||
| 5 | |||
| 6 | |||
| 7 | |||
| 8 | |||
| 9 | |||
| 10 | |||
| 11 | |||
| 12 | |||
| 13 | |||
| 14 | |||
| 15 |