User:Hummerrocket/CVUA/Coryphantha

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.

Furthermore, you may occasionally receive some feedback from Mz7, who will help me out, as I am a new instructor.

`The start`

Twinkle

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.

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.

Intent: sometimes by a new editor who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works or is sometimes a mistake, in either case it's their intent that matters. Vandalism occurs when the intent is to disturb WP, it is akin to graffiti done with spray paint. Good faith edits occur when a person actually wants to help make WP better and err because of a misunderstanding of how WP works, i.e. structure, layout, style or language. We don't want to scare away the newcomers because they are important contributors to WP, we were all new at one point. We want newcomers to feel welcome because they may someday by experienced editors. Civility is key.

That is correct. The biggest distinction is in the intentions. I like that you discuss civility, which is a bigger pillar of Wikipedia: to assume good faith. Hummerrocket (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2018 (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.

This user is just trying to add information about the castle, even though it is unsourced and needs style editing.[1]
This editor has added a an unsourced point of view comment which is not according to WP's manual of style.[2]
This is an an unsourced fact not supported by any reference, it is also not mentioned in the article.[3]

This user does not appear to like Buffalo, NY. The intent is not to help WP through editing, but is a personal opinion about Bussalo.[4]
This user is trying to make a funny remark about Potato Patch, while the town does have a funny name, this is not a social media website where people can make funny remarks on any topic they desire.[5]
Obviously this person doesn't like Dolly Parton and is not afraid to say so, WP isn't the place for this. [6]

Coryphantha Talk 21:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Coryphantha: I apologize for the unclear instructions. Can you also provide an explanation to each diff of why it is good faith/vandalism? (And in the future please sign your responses :) . Hummerrocket (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Coryphantha:

Good job on these first questions. Your next assignment is posted below. Hummerrocket (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

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

To remind good-faith test editors to use the sandbox for test edits, or to discourage vandals with bad faith disruptive edits from continuing, and help them understand why their edits were unacceptable.

Y The goal is to educate the vandals and make sure that they understand the policies of Wikipedia. Many "vandals'" first edits are often test edits to see if they can actually edit Wikipedia, to which we inform them of the policies. Hummerrocket (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

Unsourced defamatory content in biographies of living persons
Blanking pages
Creating an inappropriate page
Adding defamatory content
Adding a spam link
Adding an inappropriate image
Malicious page moves
Personal attacks on other editors
Blatant unencyclopedic image

Y These are all good examples, but keep in mind that a 4im warning is for especially egregious or extreme vandalism. If a user makes a non-constructive edit listed above but isn't particularly extreme, then a 4im would not be appropriate. Hummerrocket (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?

Unsubstituted templates are subject to transclusion (templates that are edited), it is better to use a substituted template that will not display updated text, but rather the text that was displayed at the time and date of the edit.
Add "subst:" to a template, i.e. {{example|Example}} > {{subst:example}}

Y Hummerrocket (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?

Block the editor
In cases of spam editing the spam link may be blacklisted

@Coryphantha: Just to let you know, only administrators can block users. As non-admins, you would have to report the vandalism, and then an admin will block the user. What page would you go to in order to inform them? Alternatively, what feature of Twinkle would you use to to notify administrators of vandalism that warrants a block? Hummerrocket (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Coryphantha Talk 23:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket: In order for a user to be blocked it has to be reported to Administrator intervention against vandalism. They have to have had repeated warnings (except in cases of 4im) of vandalism and spam that has not been resolved by those warnings. Also, there need to be further grounds to believe they may vandalize again in the immediate future. An admin will then block the user after review. The Twinkle feature that is used to report a user to an admin is the "ARV" tab at the top of a user's talk page. Coryphantha Talk 23:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Coryphantha: I'm sorry for the delay; the last few days have been quite unexpectedly active for me. Your next assignment is below. Hummerrocket (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2018 (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.

{{subst:uw-test1|Article}} This warning is to gently let the user know that their test edit has been reverted and to encourage them to use the sandbox for test edits.
{{subst:uw-nor1|Article}} This warning is to let the user know that their edits need to be sourced and not come from personal knowledge on the subject, or edits based on their opinions.
{{subst:uw-delete1|Article}} This warning is to gently let the user know that they shouldn't remove content without explaining why in the edit summary.

Coryphantha Talk 22:17, 29 July 2018 (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. 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.

@Coryphantha: Next assignment is below. Take your time on this one. Hummerrocket (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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 your revert	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff
1	853790264	Gave a Level 1 MOS warning, with note that this is a contentious label (Twinkle)
2	853810445	Gave a Level 1 Test edit warning, user's unhelpful edit did not apply to the definition of the equation (Twinkle)
3	854117991	Gave a Level 2 Disruptive editing warning (Twinkle), the user posted numerous links to a youtube page and blanked the page
4	854118793	Gave a Level 2 Disruptive editing warning (Twinkle), user had removed content and replaced the lede, replacing it with body content
5	854119966	Gave a Level 1 Disruptive editing warning (Twinkle), user had changed team's name in 2 places, also had another edit using inappropriate language
6	856552530	Gave a Level 1 Test edit warning (Twinkle), user's first good faith edit was unsourced
7	856560938	Gave a Level 1 Defamatory content warning (Twinkle), user added content that violates BLP and is unsourced
8	856563403	Gave a Level 3 Vandalism warning (Twinkle), user disruptive edited the article twice before same day
9	857017947	Gave a Level 2 MOS warning (Twinkle), user had repeatedly changed lede after Shellwood had reverted user's edits. I also left a subst:Uw-3rr template for edit warring
10	857786281	Gave a Level 1 Promotional warning (Twinkle), user had 3 promotional edits with links that pertained to them
11	diff	comment
12	diff	comment
13	diff	comment
14	diff	comment
15	diff	comment