User:Yunshui/CVUA/MrWooHoo

Hi, and welcome to your CVUA school. By the time you've completed the tests and tasks here, you should have a good working knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and processes with regards to vandalism, and should have no difficulty understanding and dealing with 99% of the the things you'll encounter in this area. You can ask me questions on my talkpage at any time if you aren't sure about anything here, and I also welcome suggestions for ways of improving this course.

You can complete the sections in any order; let me know when you've finished one and I'll mark it and close it for you. Save for a few cases, there are generally multiple ways to answer the questions; not many of them have clear right/wrong answers. Although I'll always try and give a reason for each mark, the basic responses you'll see are:

Y Good answer; interprets policy correctly and shows a sound understanding of the issues involved.
Y Incomplete/insufficient answer; whilst partly correct, there are better responses to this question.
N Poor answer; shows an inadequate understanding of the policies and guidelines concerned.

Have fun!

Vandals

Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, not all the edits that are made are constructive - some, in fact, are deliberately disruptive and need to be reverted. Please have a read of this essay and this guideline, then answer the questions and perform the tasks below. There's no time limit for this, it's more important that your work in this area be accurate than fast. If you aren't sure whether it's vandalism or not, it probably isn't.

Good faith and vandalism

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 an edit that may have been done when the user is inexperienced, or unaware of the policies on Wikipedia. However, a vandalism edit is very blatant, and it can be from blanking the page to tag-bombing. You can tell the difference by looking at the edit, and/or checking the users' contributions. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 01:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You're on the right track. Good faith errors can be made by experienced editors too, though, and vandalism isn't always blatant (indeed, subtle vandalism is generally much more insidious than insertions of "JIM WAS HERE LOL"). Consider the mindset involved...

Good faith edits happen when users are trying to help Wikipedia/the article involved, and they make a mistake by accident (such as unreferenced material). We can just give them a reminder, and that's at it. You should always AGF unless there's proof that it is vandalism (such as repetition, etc.)

Please find and revert three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. Please warn the editors with the correct template and give the diffs of your revisions below.

Vandalism

Please disregard the link numbers, as they are contradictory.

1. [1] (Warning) [2]

I'd be a bit wary of calling this vandalism - the IP user's edits removed a lot of unsourced and arguably challengable material, so one could make a case that they were acting in good faith. However, you did make the sensible choice to use a first-level warning despite the multiple edits, which has the most unconfrontational wording of any of the vandalism warnings; I'd say this was a reasonable if somewhat questionable call.

2. [3] (Warning) [4] (Note, I recieved a bad faith reply.)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this wasn't vandalism at all - it's pretty clear from their (not bad faith) reply that they felt they were trying to make an improvement. Remember, vandalism has to be a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia - an edit which is misguided but not malicious isn't vandalism. Users can be belligerent and ignorant of Wikipedia's ways without being vandals. In such a situation, the appropriate response would be to start a dialogue with the other user - accept that they feel the Sherdog article isn't sufficiently neutral, suggest wasy they can improve it within Wikipedia's guidelines, and offer to help. That way, we get a new contributor rather than another person who thinks Wikipedia is run by pedantic nerds.

3. [5] (Warning) [6]

Definitely vandalism, and that was the appropriate level of warning.

Good Faith

1. [7] (Warning) [8]

Yes, that's probably a gf edit, and you used the correct warning.

2. [9] (Warning) [10]

Generous of you to AGF on this one, though - height/weight changes are nearly always vandalism, especially if there's a source that says otherwise. Minor alterations to stats are a very common form of vandalism.

3. [11] (Warning) [12]

Hmm. I'm not sure that should have been reverted at all; it looked like an actual improvement to the template. Might have been better to discuss it with the editor, if you disagreed.

Warning and reporting

Please answer the following questions

Why do we warn users?

So that they become aware of the actions, and they stop (hopefully.) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 00:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That's correct, but there's another reason as well - which is?

According to this page, the other reasons would be "to minimize conflict, educate new editors, and alerts administrators of repeat offenders." Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 13:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes - as well as making them aware of the problem, warnings also let other users know about the problem. Because warnings escalate, it's easy to see what the next level of response should be if they carry on vandalising.

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

A 4im warning would be appropriate if the user has recieved a 1,2,and 3 warnings. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 00:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No, a 4im warning is an only warning, not a final warning. Compare {{uw-vandal4}} and {{uw-vandal4im}} for examples.

Read the question too fast. Sorry ;( Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 13:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if I should follow up, but a 4im warning is basically where there is severe/crazy vandalism occuring such as multiple articles blanked in one day which would give reason for a 4im warning as its an "only" warning. MrWooHoo (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, kind of. 4im warnings should be used in two situations: firstly, if the account has already made enough vandalism edits to qualify for a level 4 warning, but hasn't previously been warned, or secondly, if the vandalism is of such a blatant and egregious nature that it should not be allowed to reoccur.

What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?

You should immediately report the user to AIV. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 00:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what you should do.

Please give examples of three warnings that you might need to use while vandal patrolling and explain what they are used for.

(Vandalism) Hello, I'm MrWooHoo. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

Note that if vandalism continues, use {{subst:Uw-vandalism2/}} (without the / at the end), and increase the numbers until 4im, with increments of 1.

This is used for vandalism (obviously), examples including blanking (you can also use the one below), replacing content with "ALL CAPS/VULGAR OR WORDS LIKE POOP, and adding symbols such as !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 00:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, looks like you've got this.

(Page Blanking) Hello, I'm MrWooHoo. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

(Same note as above, except replace vandalism with delete.)

This warning is used for obvious page blanking, where articles have no content, as a user blanked a section and/or the whole article. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 00:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep.

(Miscellaneous, usually includes vandalism) Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.

(Same note as the vandalism note, except replace vandalism with disruptive.)

This template may be used for edits that aren't classified as section blanking, removing maintenance templates, etc. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 00:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much. There are specific forms of disruptive editing (separate from vandalism) which this can be used for.

Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Posts the diffs of those warnings below.

[13] Warning: [14]

You would have gotten bonus points if you'd also dealt with their vandalism to Cadbury's Dairy Milk, though!

Find an edit which could be a test edit and revert it. Warn the user with the most appropriate template, then post the diff below.

[15] (Warning) [16]

Hard to tell, to be honest, but yes, this looks more like a test than anything else.

Report 2 users to AIV and post the diffs below. Be sure to follow the guidelines and only report users where necessary; do not report simply for the sake of this task.

Dealing with difficult users

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

We do not deny recognition to trolls and vandals as they do not contribute constructively to Wikipedia (not a copy and paste answer.) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 00:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't really answer the question. To rephrase, why does denying recognition to these editors help Wikipedia?

Let me rephrase what I meant. When you deny recognition to trolls and vandals, you help Wikipedia, as they don't act in good faith, and they don't constructively contribute to Wikipedia. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 13:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, but how does denial of recognition (best expressed as the "ignore" part of revert, block, ignore) have an effect? Blocking and reverting also help Wikipedia by removing the vandal's actions and their ability to continue, but why should we also ignore them?

We deny recognition to vandals as they might become long-term abusers. After their vandalism would be reverted and their accounts/IPs were blocked, they would leave Wikipedia. MrWooHoo (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Close. It's more the case that recognition is a primary motivation for trolls and long-term vandals: they come here in the hopes of getting a response. Denying them that response removes their main reason for vandalising.

How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?

Most good faith users recognize their edit and will ask you (usually politely), but a troll would use peacock words and/or vulgar language. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 00:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a tricky question - you can't always tell - but bear in mind that politeness is no gurantee of good faith. Some of the most persistent long-term abuse cases have been impeccably polite, and some of our best editors (mentioning no names...) have a reputation for confrontational attitudes and bad language.

Protection

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

An article should only be semi-protected if it obviously has frequent vandalism and/or has socks making changes to the article. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 00:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Right as far as it goes, but there's at least one other scenario where semi-protection is warranted.

According to this page, a page should be semi-protected when "all or almost all of the vandalism is coming from unregistered users, and/or unregistered editors should be making very few quality contributions to the article compared to the amount of vandalism coming from unregistered editors. The negative effects of semi-protection on discouraging positive contributions should be more of a concern than the positive effect of decreasing vandalism. There are regularly many new vandals, therefore it would be a huge unending task to notify and warn all the vandals individually." Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 14:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, and persistent vandalism from unregistered users is the main reason this is used. What about when IP edits are disruptive for another reason?

A large amount of vandalism of IP edits? Could you rephrase that? MrWooHoo (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been a while since I wrote that! I think I was trying to guide you towards the idea that semi-protection can be used to prevent edit-warring iff all the editors involved are unregistered or unconfirmed. You've grasped the most important ideas here, though, so let's give it a a

.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Full protection usually won't occur from vandalism, but in very rare cases it does. Controversial articles are usually have full protection. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 00:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No - there's no mandate to protect articles just because the topic is controversial, and vandalism is a valid reason for full protection. Have a read of WP:PP before trying these questions again; the answers are there.

Sorry, about that. I didn't see the subsections of full protection. Here are the reasons: significant edit warring, vandalism when many auto-confirmed editors vandalising, deletion review, and protecting image names. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 14:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, straight out of the policy.

Correctly request the protection of one page (semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.