User:Theopolisme/CVUA/The Wikimon

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. For now, let's get started -- I'm beginning with a simple section, and then we can get into some more interesting stuff. :) —Theopolisme (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

Good faith and vandalism

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 almost always unintended and is not exactly disruptive. New users, or users without any knowledge about the page are unusually found making certain edits on pages an are found to be unhelpful. These are forgivable and should not be considered a vandalism as they were done in good faith.

However, Vandalism is intentional and is disruptive, and rešults in affecting Wikipedia articles more than good faith edits. The teason being that these intentional additions, deletions, reverts or scathing messages and derogatory comments are hurtful. They essentially cause problems in the smooth running of Wikipedia.

In my opinion, Vandalism is tougher to detect that Goof Faith edits, since at first all of them would appear to AGFs. But on closer inspection of the page history and diffs, it becomes easier to find Vadalism. Specific User IDs for promotion, or sock puppets and IPs are often seen making edits very vengefully and continue to do so, despite being warned. This is how I would differentiate between a Vandalism and AGF edit. The Wikimon (talk)

Good! —Theopolisme (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

What I will do is give more than three examples cause I don't know whether they are correct or not..

Good faith

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Latest Edit- Although the sources were fixed, the edit made was possibly Goof Faith...I am not too sure.
Y Good! —Theopolisme (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The Godfather (novel) Latest Edit- Yeah, this was my first goof up. A good faith edit where I attached a personal view.(Sheepish look on my face)
Y Good! —Theopolisme (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Bangladesh Latest Edit- Yeah, not too sure again, but feel the edit was done in good faith, or could actually be perfect.
Y Good! —Theopolisme (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Georgetown Hospital- A very promotional sort of edit, nonetheless, An AGF.
Y Good! —Theopolisme (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
France Silva- Good Faith or what? Borderline...
Looks a bit vandalish to me. —Theopolisme (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Shehzad Roy Latest Edit- This was a page I came across on RecentChanges. Shezad Roy: Here the RedPenofDom and Manager1234 seem to be going on and on.
Y Good! —Theopolisme (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
[Plywood- Um... What should I say? Someone stopped him/her though..
Y Good! —Theopolisme (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
World War III- Don't care what they guy says, was really a bad case of vandalism. Because lots of people look at such pages.
Y Good! —Theopolisme (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Mahyar Dean- Vague topic but still Vandalism is Vandalism
Y Good! —Theopolisme (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution- Check out the edits made by the IP user... Seems to be a fanatic guy, desperate to get his version of the article...
Y Good! —Theopolisme (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So thats all I got... Hope they are correct...

Warning and reporting

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

Why do we warn users?

Basically, a user who has vandalized has to be informed that his/her conduct was "abusive and prohibited". Such a waning can politely advise the user and correct users if they made the edit because they were unaware or made a silly mistake. The user is also made to understand the importance of such a warning with the various degrees of it that are available. Each and every time the person makes an edit in bad faith, then he/she must be informed and depending on the intensity of the edit, must be warned.

Good! And remember, even good faith "bad" edits should be appropriately mentioned to the user. —Theopolisme (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

If the edit was done in bad faith, caused a lot of problem because it was either abusive or prohibited, an only warning for severe or grotesque vandalism only need can be placed... This is the only warning which will be given... But the one who places it must be extremely careful and be about 110% sure that such a warning is absolutely necessary...

The next 4im is for deletion or blanking of loads of pages in a short period of time.. Again an only warning and very carefully thought off...

Good! —Theopolisme (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?

Templates on Wikipedia (which are pretty hard to master) tend to change, get deleted and also rot... To ensure that important templates like article namespaces, file namespaces, article talk pages and Afds, Prods, etc are safe and won't get deleted, a "subst" is placed before the template and the template becomes safe. Yeah, I think a template on a user talk page should be substituted...All Warning, Shoutout and Welcome templates need to be substituted...

Good! —Theopolisme (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?

Well the first thing to do is ask this person to apologise for the evident vandalism and explain why he/she can be blocked, at least that is the least that can be done... Next is to soften up and place a polite message on why the person was wrong and why we work so hard to promote and develop Wikipedia and such edits can be painful... If the person continues to make such edits another warning could be placed and stress be placed on how the user can be blocked... And finally, if it doesn't stop, a request must be made to block the person for a short period of time... When the person returns, an apology must be demanded... And if not then an indefinite block should be placed as a final step... This is what I would do or probably skip the polite message and second warning and request for a short time block...

A level 4 warning actually indicates that "if you do this again, you will be blocked." Since they user was already given many chances to correct their misbehavior (level 1, 2, and 3), it is appropriate to report them to AIV at this point, unless there are some sort of unforeseen circumstances. ——Theopolisme (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah will keep that in mind... It is after all the last warning and starting the warning process again wouldn't make sense. Understood :) The Wikimon (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

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.: I have a habit to give more than asked for... So here are my favourite five...

{{Tlsubst|uw-vandalism1|PageName}} unintentional vandalism or for tests...
{{Tlsubst|uw-vandalism2|PageName}} Something done intentionally or for promotion...
{{Tlsubst|uw-vandalism3|PageName}} Says "please stop" to be used after level 2 warning...
{{Tlsubst|uw-delete3|PageName}} Tells them to stop deleting content...
{{Tlsubst|uw-vandalism4|PageName}} Its the last warning for vandalism and says don't do it anymore...

Good! —Theopolisme (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

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

My 1st: Very First AIV got reviewed and the guy got blocked temporarily...IP user

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff
1	diff Nanny 911	comment I'm unsure hbow to revert the edits, becuase it involves an edit war and someone lese reverted the edits
2	diff The Carrie Diaries	comment It was nonsense and promotional and I just gave a caution...
3	diff M1 (TV Channel)	comment Clearly looks like Vandalism
4	diff Wasp	comment I'm gonna warn this person
5	diff Payam Sadeghian	comment Just let me know if I'm posting diffs correctly...
6	diff	comment
7	diff	comment
8	diff	comment
9	diff	comment
10	diff	comment
11	diff	comment
12	diff	comment
13	diff	comment
14	diff	comment
15	diff	comment