Hello Zubin12, and 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 in your answers, 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.
The start edit
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 intended to improve an article by either adding important information or else removing information the editor feels in inaccurate or reduces the quality of an article. The information added my be misleading, poorly written or in violation of established policy but they are intended to improve the article. Vandalism, by contrast, is intended to damage or reduce the quality of an article for the fun of the vandal or else to make a joke.
An edit that is trying to add possibly correct information or improve the flow of an article would be in good faith, while vandalism would be a purley disruptive edit that can not be interprted in any way as improving the article Zubin12 (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Great response! The key distinction between good faith and vandalism is intention. It simply does not matter whether an edit ultimately helped an article or destroyed an article. If the edit was submitted with the intention of helping, then it is good faith and should be treated differently from vandalism. Mz7 (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, so when do I get my new assignment?Zubin12 (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Zubin12: I am so sorry for the delay. My mind has been thinking about how to get a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators along with real-life work, so I haven't been thinking about CVUA. I've posted your next assignment below, and I will also give feedback on your good faith/vandalism examples as well. I should have more time in the next few days, since it's the weekend. Mz7 (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, so when do I get my new assignment?Zubin12 (talk) 06:39, 6 September 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.
- Good faith
1:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pour_It_Up&diff=prev&oldid=854559431 Zubin12 (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
2:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luke_Combs&diff=prev&oldid=854127309 Zubin12 (talk) 06:01,
3:September 2018 (UTC) 3:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_rhinoceros&diff=prev&oldid=853631325 Zubin12 (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Vandalism
1:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dracula_(Castlevania)&diff=856917037&oldid=856917008, Zubin12 (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
2:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hacker_chad_%26vy&diff=prev&oldid=856005488 Zubin12 (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
3:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siberia&diff=prev&oldid=854125397 Zubin12 (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
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
- Why do we warn users?
- When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
- Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?
- What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
- 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.
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.