User:Vertium/CVUA/Gwickwire

Hello Gwickwire, welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Every person I mentor has 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. If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are welcome to raise them with me here. I will check this page at least once a day while we're working together.

In order to get started, I'll have a look at some of your recent edits and reversions, and if you can give me a little background here on any specific areas you want to concentrate on, then I can tailor the approach we'll take. We'll probably cover the entire curriculum I've built for the Academy, but we'll go faster through the topics where you already have confidence and spend more time and action in those that you want to improve most.

I'm looking forward to working with you on this! When you've replied to this, I'll tailor the approach and start putting content and tasks out here for you to do as you have time. Talk with you soon. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 13:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to concentrate on more of the "gray area" type of vandalism. Like, things that aren't blatant vandalism (cussing, blanking, inappropriateness, etc.) but are more gray areas of "should I revert this?". Also, this is probably not something that you have a curriculum for, but for some reason, my Huggle started going slow... I'd love to learn how more experienced people use Huggle to it's fullest ability. Thanks! gwickwire | Leave a message 18:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! I 'm presuming you've read WP:AGF and WP:VAND and understand them well. If not, please read them and we can move forward quickly. I may disappoint in that I'm not a Huggle user (strictly Mac user here) though I use STiki extensively, and from what I've heard, the functionality is similar. In STiki, I can see not only the edit diff for review, but also have links to the article page, the article history, the contributor info, etc. In the "gray area" of vandalism, I find that the tool is less helpful except as a mechanism to click over and conduct an inspection of the editor's history and contribution trends. That is most telling to me. Additionally, I find it easier to glean intent when I've looked at the article history and the overall contributions made by that editor.

The downside to this is that it slows down the actual reversion effort. The upside is that you can better suss out some of the sneaky vandalism that occurs. I recommend a focus on good vandalism reversion more than trying to get a huge number or do it too fast.

To move forward, please confirm that you've read those two articles I mention above and in the next day or so, I'll put out some reversion diffs for you to have a look at. Some will have been done as Good Faith reversions and some for vandalism. I'd like you to have a look at them and let me know if you agree with their categorization and why or why not. Thanks. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 17:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I can say that I understand the two policies well. The implementation of them can be gray sometimes though. But I do understand the policies well. It's no problem that you don't use Huggle (but don't they have HG for mac now?), I'll just learn that as as I go along. I'm ready for this "quiz" or whatever you'd like to call it! gwickwire | Leave a message 21:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Reversions: Agree or Disagree?

Each of the following reversions were completed by other editors, some were for Vandalism and others were for AGF reasons. Please have a look at each diff and tell me if you think they should have been reverted (some will be obvious, others less so) and if so, were they reverted for the proper reason. Do these at your own pace... don't feel like you have to get them all done at once.

Reversion of Good Faith edits:

• Billa II
  • I think that this one was a good faith revert. However, I think that, especially if the original editor re-added the information, there should be a call for consensus. This one is pretty close, I would have reverted it myself the first time. Also, I'm not sure that the language is Indian, I may be wrong on that though. I would definitally check that before any further action.

Y I agree with your assessment and I'm not aware of any WP policy against non-arabic texts (except in article titles). I have a personal opinion about the value of non-English text in the English WP, and agree that consensus would be helpful here.

• Scottish sovereignty
  • The edit was definitally good faith in my opinion. Since it is an IP, and I didn't know much about it, I would have AGF reverted it and then opened for comment (not RfC, just a post on the talk page). Y agree.
• Justin Bieber (with my apologies)
  • I'm not sure the source the user provided is reliable, or even applicable to the information he added. I do think this was added to the article in good faith by the first editor however. I would look for another source before revert, or maybe just have cleaned up the NPOV of the comment, instead of revert. Y Brilliant. Too far often, reverts are made when cleanup would be more beneficial to the article.
• Colbie Caillat
  • Clean cut good faith addition. Just didn't have a reference. (Just wondering, did you know the reverting user is blocked as a sock puppet?) I would try to find a source for this before revert. Y I didn't know the reverting editor was blocked (I just go in search of edits to use as examples here). Were they blocked at the time the revert was made? Your approach to do some research on it is great!
• Qantas
  • Seems to be good faith to me, just unsourced and trivial whether it is needed in article. Y Agree.
• Schrödinger's cat
  • This one's hard. Looking at the previous diffs (before the one you provided), I see that the user made a lot of successive edits to the article, in that one place. This seems to be commonplace among new/IP editors, and it looks like they were just trying to add quotation marks that were needed. I wouldn't revert here, as opposed to just cleaning it up and putting the quotation marks in the right spot. Y It's one of the challenges that the tools (e.g. STiki, Huggle, etc.) present in their use. Most who use the tools are looking for speed and to do a good job on the reversions (especially those that aren't blatant) requires a more detailed look at the context and history of the reversions. Good job!

In most instances,if I'm in "vandalism-hunting" mode, I don't spend much time worrying about good faith edits unless they're like the Qantas update above - trivial and unnecessary (especially when unsourced). I tend to focus on the more blatant vandalism and then dig into the "suspicious" edits as they arise. All of those take the approach we've discussed - looking at the history of edits, the contribs, etc. I will often look over the user's talk page history (even for an IP) just to see what's been "deleted" historically, if I suspect that they're up to no good.

I'll take a look at the next section in a bit. (Again, sorry for the delay!!!) Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 22:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Reversions for Vandalism:

• Republican Party vice presidential candidates
  • Oh ClueBot, how we love you. However, this one seems to be more of a good faith, just because I did see on a major news network that Hutchinson (who happens to be my senator, coinkydink) was being considered by some of the presidential candidates as a veep candidate. So, I would look for a source, and if I couldn't find one I would AGF revert through TW as unsourced. Y I agree. Not vandalism by any definition. Clearly unsourced and "suspect" as to its veracity, so your approach is spot on.
• Singapore Airlines
  • I agree with the part of the edit summary provided that is tests, to an extent. This, seeing as it was made by a new registered user seems to be more good faith to me. However, I still would have reverted it as unencyclopedic. Y agree.
• US Navy
  • Obvious to me that this wasn't in any way correct or valid. Vandalism. Revert and warn. Y Exactly. Orders of magnitude in error, so needed to be reverted as vandalism
• Prometheus (film)
  • Not vandalism at all. Editor seemed to be putting in a figure that was expanding on 330 million by including exact number. I'm actually not fully sure on the policy on numbers for sales of movies, but I would have checked before any action. Y I agree. When it comes to numbers like this, I'd have actually just left it as is. The gross revenue from a movie can change from day to day and the approximation of $300 million was sufficient. I happen to be of the opinion that too much of this type of information is worthless in the encyclopedia, but I take no action to remove it (and therefore avoid all the arguments), but by the same token don't go to much effort to change or check it. It's going to change too often to be worried about.
• Pussy Riot
  • ClueBot, what's going on? You're usually so good when I watch your changes! False positive. Was just trying to clarify the person being talked about. No revert from me. (Oh, and I'm sorry if my talking to CB annoys you :P) Y Your talking about CB doesn't annoy me at all! CB is usually spot on in accuracy, but does make mistakes, especially when words like "pussy" are used. I agree, I'd not have reverted at all.
• Vytauras
  • Considering the edit summary suggests that the IP may be only a sockpuppet, then I assume the user had done this before. If it's the second or further time it's done, then its obvious vandalism and edit warring. Revert and warn. Y You are extremely thorough in your analysis. Way to go!
• Let's Go to Prison
  • Seems more like a test than vandalism. I would have vandal reverted anyway just to be safe, because it's an IP editor who may or may not have been just 'testing'. Y I might have looked at his/her contribs to see if there'd been much other action. There hadn't been - this was their only edit ever - so a revert and warn would be fine.

I'm going to look at your entries below, but I have to say that you seem to have a really strong grasp on how to handle vandalism!!

Challenging Examples

Please provide some diffs of edits where you have questioned whether to revert or not... the so-called "gray area". Let's put our heads together and see if we can reach consensus.

I'm looking for some now. I will post any if I find them.. For some reason my link to the toolserver edit searcher has mysteriously disappeared... Boo. I'll get back to you about that. Otherwise, there are a few above that are kind of close in my opinion. I'll keep looking for some close calls of my own. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Below I've put some that are closer to borderline for me.

• Michael Rosen I reverted this as BLP vio, but would you consider this to be vandalism as well?

If I'm using STiki to revert, it would be a simple vandalism revert (as STiki has only "vandalism" or "good faith" revert options. If I were using TW, I'd definitely do the BLP vio revert and warning.

• Caste System in India This one I reverted as, well nothing, but I meant to do an AGF revert. Would you consider this vandalism, and use HG/rollback, or a TW revert or undo?

Well, there's an F-bomb in there as well, so a revert for vandalism would definitely be in order, rather than AGF. If it had only been the ranks you were reverting, AGF would have been the best choice IMO.

• Kesha Pretty much same as above.

My thought is that this is an appropriate AGF revert, primarily because it's just a sentence fragment stuck into the text, ostensibly to discredit the subject of the article. It is not, as written, encyclopedic. If the sentence had been more complete, such as "It has been reported that artist XYZ typically uses Autotune when recording her records" (with appropriate reference citations) then it would be more encyclopedic and worthy of being kept.

• Pierre Laval This one is a little closer to AGF for me, but I'd welcome your input.

I'd revert this as AGF, primarily because unless it's obvious swearing or disruption, I find I get a better dialogue with someone if I call their edits "good faith" rather than "unconstructive" or "vandalism". While it might be intended to be disruptive or vandalism, it's not quite so obvious. Of course, as it turns out, the user has an indefinite block in place now for vandalism. In this instance, it would be best to check contribs to see what you're dealing with, though I'd still have done AGF to begin with. (Better to presume good faith and later be found wrong than the other way around).

• Alia Bhatt Factual errors or just testing, or vandalism?

This is one of my bugaboos. Unless someone's birth year can be easily verified through WP:RS (which is often difficult to find a truly reliable source), I tend to not even revert them, especially when the individual is only marginally notable.

• Sleep Rape This one was hell for me for a few days. I first saw this in New Pages, and marked it as a CSD under vandalism (and mentioned that it was also duplication). An admin removed the CSD and didn't close it, I asked him on his talk page why, we had a conversation. I had a conversation with another editor, and then PROD'ed it based on our discussion. After that, someone came and removed the PROD. Following further discussion, I boldly redirected it to Rape based on the fact that all the information was included there. Nobody has removed the redirect. This is a huge one that I just don't know about. Sorry for the long message on this one.

No need to apologize for a long message. Your explanation was very helpful. Your redirection seems to be a good one (especially considering no one has reverted it!). Only question is whether you ensured that the content in the original article is fairly represented in the target article. Considering that the original article had no references, I don't think that's a big concern. I also disagree with the suggestion on the original article that it be merged with "sleep sex". I think your redirect more appropriate. I know it's often stressful when the admins start "correcting" you - but you gave it the right kind of thought and boldness should be celebrated. Good job. Of course, some admin might disagree with me - one of the reasons I'll likely never be an admin ;)

• Tornado Emergency (I will admit I am very attached to this topic, not in real life, but I care about the information a lot) Would it be considered vandalism if they add it over and over?

Let me start by saying I'm not 100% sure what's going on with the reverts. It looks like it's a difference in the examples used within the article. If that's the case, rather than risk a slap for 3RR, it should be referred to the talk page for discussion. From what I can tell, it didn't appear to be vandalism. Am I missing something?

• iHeartRadio Removal of content in Good Faith or vandalism? (This one was complicated for me by the fact that I had like 600 edits at the time, and they were very experienced here)

Wow, this page sure has changed since these edits were done. I think your edits were valid and it's true, Twister Sister is a very experienced editor, so if there's a difference of opinion (or a need to drive to consensus), a message for them on their talk page would be the best course. It appears as though David (Twister Sister) felt that much of the content was advertising in nature - which is best to delete if it's blatant.

Anddddd.. I just got a message. So for now I'll be done. If this is a lot feel free to take your time. Thanks! (PS: I hope there's not an edit conflict with this long edit... Ugh.) gwickwire | Leave a message 00:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses! gwickwire | Leave a message 03:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)