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.
Wikipedia vandalism information
(abuse log)
Low to moderate level of vandalism
[view • purge • update]
3.60 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 17:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
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.
Note: 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
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note: 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 recognize the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labeling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.
Task no. 1 Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
- A: Vandalism is an edit which is overtly made to worsen an article. A good faith edit is an edit which is made to improve an article
I expected more detailed answer. Jim Carter 14:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Task no. 2 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.
- A: Good faith: Here, where the User changed the genre without discussion/consensus (apparently bro-country is a thing though...). Here, this User posted un-encyclopedic information that was true on Wikipedia. Also here, where the User included a citation that did not necessarily help the article, and should rather be placed in a page such as Gun law in Washington, D.C.
- A: Vandalism: Here, I thought perhaps that the User was going to improve the page, but by seeing the other edits by their IP, it was clear vandalism. Here and here
Task no. 3 An IP user has removed some unsourced information from an article about a living person without providing an edit summary. Will you revert the edit or will you not? Give reason why you think the edit should/should not be reverted. Is there anything you can do other than reverting/not reverting?
- A: Well, it always depends. Typically this is viewed as blanking, but it depends if the material was simply unsourced or flagged as unsourced. Most unsourced information added to Wikipedia is added in good faith, and I would feel that an IP removing a large amount of content would indeed be blanking, but I would investigate. If the content cannot be found on the Internet, then I would most likely not revert the deletion, as the content is not verifiable. If I am able to find the information, I would attempt to include a reference with the information on the article page.
- Conclusion: it depends...
Task no. 4 I'm listing four diffs below. You'll tell me whether they are vandalism or Good faith.
- 1
- A: Good faith. This appears to be an edit/test, and it appears that the IP is confused as to how to add pictures (hence the seal.jpg...). I would revert the edit, because there are several useless characters. It appears that the image was copyrighted as well,which means it ought to be removed.
- Remember to check the history before clicking the revert button unless it's sheer vandalism. If you would have checked the history, you might have found it to be a vandal edit. See here, they have repeated similar edits which is a evidence of vandalism. Also, if an edit seems problematic do check other edits from that user, it is sometime helpful to determine if the edit is done in good faith or vandalism. Jim Carter 14:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- A: Good faith. This appears to be an edit/test, and it appears that the IP is confused as to how to add pictures (hence the seal.jpg...). I would revert the edit, because there are several useless characters. It appears that the image was copyrighted as well,which means it ought to be removed.
- 2
- A: Good faith. I am assuming good faith, as the content does not appear to be disruptive. Also, this is an obscure stub article that few people would bother editing, which is why I would assume that an IP would edit such a page for the purpose of improving the page. Also, the fact that no citations exist should be noted. I would not revert such an edit.
- A: Good faith. I am assuming good faith, as the content does not appear to be disruptive. Also, this is an obscure stub article that few people would bother editing, which is why I would assume that an IP would edit such a page for the purpose of improving the page. Also, the fact that no citations exist should be noted. I would not revert such an edit.
- 3
- A: Good faith. These edits are unnecessary, and not destructive/disruptive towards the article. These edits actually do nothing except take up space. I personally wouldn't revert this, as for some editors this might help them change the citation in the future (more spaces allow the User to quickly identify components). Another example of this is the editing of an infobox and inserting spaces for the sake of organization. I made an example here. These sorts of edits help users in the future.
- A: Good faith. These edits are unnecessary, and not destructive/disruptive towards the article. These edits actually do nothing except take up space. I personally wouldn't revert this, as for some editors this might help them change the citation in the future (more spaces allow the User to quickly identify components). Another example of this is the editing of an infobox and inserting spaces for the sake of organization. I made an example here. These sorts of edits help users in the future.
- 4
- A: Good faith. These edits appear to be constructive, as they have improved the prose of the article. At first glance, I would not revert for any reason. I would check the subsequent citations to verify the minor added content.
Task no. 5 Ok, this is the last question of level 1, once you answer this we will proceed to the next level: Suppose an editor has added the following content in an article: "<!--The person who is editing this article and reading this line at this moment is a moron. Hahaha!-->" Well I know this is vandalism, that is not the question. The question is– mention which type of vandalism is this? Check here the types first.
- A:I woud identify this as hidden vandalism, because the embedded textis offensive and disruptive. The comment is not constructive in anyway and disrupts future edits
- A:I woud identify this as hidden vandalism, because the embedded textis offensive and disruptive. The comment is not constructive in anyway and disrupts future edits
Warning and reporting
editNote: 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. Please read WP:WARN and WP:UWUL before answering the following questions.
Task no. 5 Why do we warn users?
- A: First, warnings are used to notify a user of vandalism or other edits that are against Wikipedia's policies. Second, these warnings are used to notify other users/administrators of the user's(vandal's) edit history. Third, to block users (typically, users should be warned before a block is set, though not always limited to warnings).
- We warn users to inform that their edits violates Wikipedia's policies. Some may not know that may have violated Wikipedia's policies, but some have bad intentions to harm Wikipedia. Vandalism is something that all the users should kick off and avoid, so placing the right tags for each cases (e.g vandalism, illegitimate deletion of content or other cases), to let them know what is their mistake, and they may change their attitude to become good contributors. Jim Carter 16:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Task no. 6 When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
- A: In the cases when sockpuppeting is overt, and when a user has an extensive record of vandalism.
- It's a one and only warning. Generally used in the case of excessive or continuous disruption from a user or specific IP (also see Template:uw-longterm). I generally don't use 4im warnings (except in cases of an extreme BLP vio or extreme vandalism) preferring to use a level 3 then level 4. Jim Carter 16:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Task no. 7 Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?
- A: I have always used the substitute template for warning users of vandalism; however I suppose that while warning experienced users of violation, not using the substitute template would be appropriate. Experienced users should already aware of how to use the template, and for lengthy talk pages, extra code is unnecessary.
The reason we substitute is so that the warning you leave won't change if the template is later changed. It is always important to substitute any warning template. Twinkle already does that for us, though. Jim Carter 16:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Task no. 8 What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalizes again?
- A:Report the violations on the WP:AIAV page, use the vandal/IP vandal template and explain the reason for which the user should be blocked.
Task no. 8 Please give examples (using {{Tlsubst|''name of template''}}) of seven different warnings (not different levels of the same warning, I encourage you to use the templates referred to above), that you might need to use while recent changes patrolling and explain what they are used for.
- A:
Task no. 10 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 WP:AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below:
- A:
| # | Diff of your revert | Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff | Instructor's comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |||
| 2 | |||
| 3 | |||
| 4 | |||
| 5 | |||
| 6 | |||
| 7 | |||
| 8 | |||
| 9 | |||
| 10 | |||
| 11 | |||
| 12 | |||
| 13 | |||
| 14 | |||
| 15 | |||
| 16 |