User:Kharkiv07/CVUA/Some Gadget Geek

Hello! Welcome to your counter-vandalism academy page. Please add this page to your watchlist, as I'll be posting assignments and marking you here. Please feel free to leave any questions/comments/concerns at my talk page!

After we cover the very basics of policy, I'll recommend that you attempt to receive rollback and I will endorse that request, so we can move on to tools like Huggle and STiki. Finally, before you begin, please read WP:Vandalism, as it contains information essential to your training.

Training program adapted from ItsZippy

Good faith

When patrolling recent changes, and important distinction to make is between edits that are pure vandalism and disruptive, and edits that are truly vandalism. Important reading for this lesson includes WP:NOTVANDALISM and WP:AGF. Once you have read these, please answer the questions below:

How do you tell the difference between good-faith edits and vandalism?

Good-faith edits do not meet the conditions that explicitly demonstrate an intention to harm the encyclopedia, and is what distinguishes things like disruptive editing from which is specifically considered vandalism.

Y It's important to note that good-faith edits are made in good-faith, I know this seems extremely obvious but not only do they not have the intention to harm, but they also have the intention of trying to help.

Find three examples of good-faith edits

1. "shortur" (editing tests)

   Y

2. "His later post 1945 poetry was confined to a handfull of polished masterpieces..." (NPOV)

   Y Especially when coupled with the edit summery "an attempt to praise dylans vision")

3. "Windows Phone was developed quickly..." (edit summary omission)

   Y Technically this is a good-faith edit, but it's not something that could be reverted over in itself, it's very common for annons and new users to not use a edit summery.

Find three examples of vandalism

1. "Sex is a very fun way to use dicks." (silly vandalism)

   Y

2. "Hacked By OurَMine Team! - Twitter: @Our_Mine ." (blanking)

   Y

3. "They have magnetic feet that stick to the ceiling" (hoaxing)

   Y This could even be classified as pure vandalism

These examples do not have to be recent, you can just find some from browsing around

Warning and reporting

Before beginning this next section, please familiarize yourself with WP:WARN and WP:UWUL.

Questions

Why do we warn in the first place?

We warn users so that they are aware of their actions and the possible consequences.

Y

In what situations is a 4im warning appropriate?

A 4im warning is only appropriate in the most severe, intolerable cases of disruptive activity.

Y It's very, very rare that I'll use a 4im warning, in a case of severe case of disruption I'll jump to a level 3, which is perfectly acceptable

Should warnings be substituted? How do you do this?

Warnings should be substituted by adding "subst:" before the template name in curly brackets.

Y

What should you do after a user has received a level 4 or 4im warning, and then continues to vandalize?

The user should be reported at the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard.

Y

Please find 5 templates from WP:WARN (not just different levels of one) that you'd use fighting vandalism and explain what they're for.

1. {{subst:uw-test1}} would be appropriate for new, inexperienced users just trying out edits on Wikipedia.

   Y

2. {{subst:uw-joke2}} would be suitable for users who have previously put jokes into one or two pages.

   Y Never had to use this one, I don't think, normally it's just vandalism

3. {{subst:uw-own3}} would be used on editors who have made repeated claims of article ownership.

   Y This is also one that I rarely use, often this is a regular and I like to follow WP:DTTR

4. {{subst:uw-generic4}} would be helpful when someone has not stopped making disruptive edits in general.

   Y A more specific one is probably better, if possible

5. {{subst:uw-delete4im}} would make sense on those whose only activity involves blanking content from pages.

   Y Both Twinkle and Huggle allow for a difference between blanking and removal of content, each is usually acceptable, but I can't think of a single situation when a 4im would be appropriate for either

Practical

Time to revert some vandalism. Please include:

1. 2 test-edits
2. 2 AIV reports

Number	Diff (revert, warning, and AIV report if applicable)	Any comments you have	Results
1	User:103.226.21.219 (uw-test1)	first_release_url =;;;	Y
2	User:117.251.38.67 (uw-spam1)	preview_version = 10.0.12648.133 (Announcing Windows 10 Mobile Insider Preview Build 10162)	N I don't think this was an appropriate template. They simply changed the build in the link, maybe they thought it was the build shown in the article--who knows? Regardless, it certainly wasn't addition of spam links. I'd go with test edit.
3	User:173.209.212.208 (uw-vandal1)	Sacramento	Y A test edit, and while you were good to AGF, it wouldn't have been unreasonable to give a level 2 with all of their recent warnings.
4	User:49.181.203.57 (welcome-anon-unconstructive)	tayla	Y Good use of the welcome template, while not always appropriate, it worked nicely here.
5	User:203.32.93.125 (uw-vandalism4im)	Beware of the amazing artists passion.	Y Good warning, but technically you should've given a normal "uw-vandalism4", im is a final warning for absolutely egregious vandalism (I hardly ever give them), all it does is change the wording
6	User:42.60.33.236 (uw-test1)	1.5	Y
7	User:103.38.176.100 (uw-vandalism1)	this would Crash your computer	Y
8	User talk:8.35.22.242 (uw-block)		N Okay I'm seeing a few things going on here: First you didn't substitute (something we addressed earlier) nor signed your warning, both big red flags. Second, you jumped from a level 2 warning to a 4im for no apparent reason. Third, you gave the warning and then proceeded to report to AIV, the blocking admin here made a mistake, as the user didn't vandalize after their last warning.
9	User:197.77.36.186 (uw-disruptive1)	Tgggroll	Y I would've probably gone with a test edit, but I can live with disruptive. Also, have you considered using Twinkle to give warnings? It's so much easier.
10	User:165.139.71.1 (uw-distruptive2)	The song describes a Young boy that needs help, the song states that cole has lived a very stressful Childhood...	N The page was called help me, he was clearly looking for help, moreover even if the page wasn't help me it would still be a test edit.
11	User:124.168.171.118 (uw-vandalism1)	Antartica	Y
12	User:78.144.191.154 (uw-test1)	Alban (dranga)	Y Good job interpreting it as a test edit, but in the future I'd mention that you were reverting with good faith or something of the like in the edit summary.
13	User:27.67.1.25 (uw-test1)	10.0.10549.4	Y
14	User:128.239.203.127 (uw-hoax1)	Pittsburgh	Y
15	User:5.212.242.185 (uw-test1)	bridge	Y
16	User:38.103.98.50 (uw-block)	acquiHIred	Y

STiki

Let's do the same thing as last time, but with STiki. This will show me (and any admins looking at rollback for you) your ability to make fast paced edits.

#	Diff	Any (optional) comments	Results
1	Ashley Parker Angel (208.94.186.250)	Uncited BLP change	Y It's clearly a BLP violation, no need to AGF
2	Romulus F.C. (77.98.61.235)	Unsourced content	Y You don't always need to revert in the case of unsourced content...
3	Rob Manfred (173.14.80.81)	Vandalism	Y Once again, no need to AGF
4	TorrentSpy (94.128.237.14)	Test	N Are you sure this is inaccurate?
5	Colonel Tom Parker (2001:8003:4044:EB00:5433:1219:FD82:F9C8)	Unsourced content	Y I'm not sure this had to be reverted immediately
6	Rovi (106.51.30.251)	Test edit	N Test edit? No. It was clearly a user trying to be productive
7	Once Upon a Time in the North (123.3.111.127)	Vandalism	Y
8	Technical standard (92.111.16.217)	Test edit	Y This is a test edit, not a good faith one. There's a difference
9	Don McLean (108.28.79.178)	Uncited BLP change	N Have you read the book that this is cited with?
10	Bruce (108.28.79.178)	Joke edit	Y This is clearly not good faith