User:Vibhijain/Uncletomwood

First Chapter - Vandalism

• What is Vandalism?

  Vandalism is bad editing.It is editing which causes harm and is not constructive.The vandalizing user has negative intentions and uses Wikipedia in a negative way.

• How to spot vandalism?

  Vandalism is ever growing in Wikipedia and can be spotted in atleast 7 out of 10 articles.Vandalism includes blanking,inroducing deliberate information etc.Usually I spot most vandalism at Special:RecentChanges

• How to respond to vandalism?

  Revert vandalism edits and issue the vandal appropriate warnings

• What should not be one in case an article is vandalized?

  Angry and frustrated.One should be cool and calm and not bite newcomers and assume Good faith at times

• How to warn vandalizing users?

  Use the warning templates

Try to answer this questions in your own words. Don't get tensed (I must have gone mad, since I am asking a CRPF jawan to not get tensed :P), it is just to make you ready to fight vandalism. You have to just read WP:VAN, and simply answer these questions. There is no marking scheme, so no need to write in detail. ;P Just write as much you think is enough. You can quote the policy if appropriate. Thanks for taking your time. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Done Sir! Uncletomwood (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice answers. I would now like to give you some advices:

1. Some edits are not constructive but they are not classified as vandalism. For example, some one may be trying to de-neutralize a controversial article. In some cases, this POV can be immediately revered, but many a times one has to take the issue to the talk page in order to prevent an edit war.
2. I think that you should use tools like STiki. You can request its access here, and once you are given the access, I will tell you its mechanism.
3. If someone continues vandalism even after the last warning, report him on WP:AIV.

I would also advice you to add this page to your watchlist as all our conservation would take place here. Also I would like to follow your edits to see your progress; however I need your consent for that. Please give your consent below if you are comfortable with that. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree! Uncletomwood (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Guest comment Identifying vandalism is quite easy but differentiating vandalism from good-faith edits is the most difficult one.......IMO try twinkle for some days and make some good-faith reverts before going for STiki or Huggle etc.... If you could easily differentiate good-faith from the bad ones...getting access to STiki is not a big deal..I could help you there... :) ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 09:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Strike gave a good point. Twinkle is a good tool to start with. Try to find some vandalising edits or good-faith edits (which need to reverted) on Special:RecentChanges. After that warn the editor using Twinkle.

I also saw your revert at Gulzar. Although the revert was right, you forget to warn the user. I have done that for you, however this is something you should always do as this helps the editor to contribute in a better way. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Will do!But i am using TW for quite some time do you think I need to move onto Huggle and Stiki?Uncletomwood (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing like that. STiki an Huggle are tools which bring on suspected edits in front of you and you have to take appropriate actions. They also warn the user automatically, and I will advice you to give it a try. However Twinkle is a great tool and you should continue with it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok so is there a next chapter sir?

No need to call me sir, you can call me Vaibhav. Before going on to the next chapter, let me take a test. Go to Special:RecentChanges and find some edits which need to be reverted. List them below either as Vandalism or Good faith. Also tell which kind on warning did you placed on the talk page. For example, if a person blanks a page and he has already received a level-one warning, then you should give him a level-2 warning for blanking pages. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

1. [1]  
2. [2] ✗ '

You forgot to warn the user.

1. [3] ✗ '

This seems to be a good-faith edit, as the edit most probably wanted to contribute. Adding unreferenced content should not be counted as vandalism, unless the content seems to be like that.

Good-faith

1. [4] ✗ '

This seems to be vandalism, as the editor has added useless text.

1. [5]  
2. [6]  

Ok Vaibhav!Uncletomwood (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I recently saw that you nominated some articles for speedy deletion. I am giving you a similar assignment. Go to Special:NewPages and try to find some articles eligible for SD. They don't need to be vandalizing articles. I am not sure if this comes under CVU but New Page Patrolling is something you should try. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)