User:Illusion Flame/CVUA/Shadestar474
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 red - 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]Twinkle
[edit]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.
- I enabled Twinkle. Shadestar474 (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 03:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- P.S. Within a few hours of activating it, Iโve already accidentally pressed the rollback button on a both good faith and constructive edit! (Donโt worry, I reverted it seconds after) Now I know what that button doesโฆwhoops.
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. 4-5 sentences, in your own words.
- Good faith edits are edits made by people who are trying to help the encyclopedia, even if their edits may seem unconstructive. They are not always made by newcomers, although they often are (because newcomers might not understand the rules and etiquette of Wikipedia yet). Sometimes they are made by the most experienced of editors, like boldly editing, which is not vandalism, and is instead encouraged in most situations. They should not be treated like vandalism, and instead we should gently push new users to learn about the policies they may have inadvertently violated, for example, the policy to not use articles as test edit spaces. I would tell them apart by asking the user that made them about it, and if it is a topic I am not well-versed in, I would do some research to prevent this from happening again. Shadestar474 (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. Often it can be tricky when trying to determine if a user is a simple vandal/long term abuser or a good faith user trying to help. Itโs always best to discuss with the user when unsure. If they respond with something like โI didnโt know. Thank you.โ You can likely AGF. If they respond with โgo awayโ, you can probably assume bad faith. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 03:35, 16 November 2023 (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] Looks like a bold edit, but is unexplained and does not appear constructive.
- , could be. Iโd investigate more before making a final verdict. Itโs also important to look at a users other contributions when making this decision. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 03:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- [2] Again, is unexplained removal.
- Yep. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 03:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yep.
- [3] They probably are very rooted in what they think, and were not trying to harm Wikipedia, but wanted to share what they think everyone else should think with the world. Appears to be vandalism on the surface, but is probably good, if ill-guided, faith.
Shadestar474 (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Unlikely. The user appears to be an anti-Wikipedia user. (An editor whose edits express a distain towards Wikipedia). Whether their intent was to assist readers or promote Wikipedia hate is up for speculation. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 03:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Vandalism:
- [4] Enstooled is just a funny way of saying installed. I donโt think this couldโve been a good faith edit, but I was just going with my gut for this. It was before I knew you have to use logic and careful consideration.
I disagree. Enstooled is another term for enthronement, not a funny way of saying installed. If youโre ever not sure about reverting. Donโt revert. We want quality reverts, not necessarily a lot of them. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 03:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- [5] Seems very opinionated, and looks like they were trying to get attention, as is mentioned in the motivation of a vandal.
- Now blocked for vandalism. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 03:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- [6] Seems like just random nonsense put there to disrupt.
Shadestar474 (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 03:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Note: I am probably being terrible at assuming good faith here, I donโt have tons of practice at that, but I think this is the practice, so I will try as best I can.
- No problem. If you already knew all of this stuff, you wouldnโt need to take the course! - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 04:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Iโd like to see just a little more work in good faith v.s vandalism detection. Please determine if these edits are vandalism or good faith and explain why in 2-3 sentences.
- 1
- It looks like they were putting genuine information on there, just they didnโt know it has to be sourced and they also didnโt know how to spell or use grammar.
- 2
- Looks like blanking.
- 3 (Note WP:LISTPEOPLE)
- I canโt understand this diff bc itโs in a different format than the one Iโm used to for some reason.
Iโm sufficiently satisfied. 
Passed pt. #1 - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 04:15, 16 November 2023 (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.
Why do we warn users?
- To make sure they know the policies they are violating, so that if they didnโt know, now they do. And also to give them time before they are blocked (if they continue down this path) to change their path.
- - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 11:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
- If the actions taken by the user being given the warning are so drastic that they warrant such an immediate blocking.
- I think youโre on the right track here. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 12:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think youโre on the right track here.
Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?
- Yes, because if the warning template changes in the future, the record of what you put on there will change, and the meaning of it might as well. As to how, you just do it like this: {{subst|template}}
- Yep. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 11:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yep.
What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
- Report them to ANI
- Nope. When youโre free, re-read WP:VANDALISM and respond back with a new answer! - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 11:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Report them to AIV?
- . Yep! Twinkle can help with this too. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 22:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Report them to AIV?
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-subtle1}} Should be used for instances of subtle vandalism, for example, knowingly inserting false information into an article that is plausible enough that most readers could see it and say, โOh, that seems legit.โ
- - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 20:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{subst:uw-disruptive1}} Should be used for instances of disruptive, but not vandalism, editing, for example, trying to promote oneself.
- , but promotional edits have their own template, {{uw-advert1}}. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 20:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{subst:uw-blank1}} Should be used for instances of blanking, for example, deleting the contents of a whole page or only some of the page.
- - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 20:00, 19 November 2023 (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}}.
Find and revert some vandalism. (Not good faith edits) Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Please include at least two appropriate reports to AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below.
I am going to be busy tomorrow, I will do all of the vandalism reverts below the day after tomorrow. Thanks for understanding, Shadestar474 (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Of course. This course is entirely at your own pace! - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 11:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Also, a question, do I have to revert the vandalism to put it on this table? Because, when Iโm recent changes patrolling, all the vandalism gets reverted by other people within seconds of it happening, so I canโt get to the vandalism in time to revert it.
- This has been a problem for other students too. Users with more advanced tools, like Hugggle, often beat newer vandal fighters to vandalism. How about this: At least 5 need to be your reverts, the rest can be others, but you must explain if you think the revert was good or bad. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 22:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you! And it says to revert vandalism, but can they be reverts of unconstructive, but good faith, edits? I just reverted one of those and am wondering if I can put it into the table.
- I guess thatโs fine. Try to do as many of your own reverts as you can, and less of others than. Please also remember to warn users. Thanks! - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 00:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you! And it says to revert vandalism, but can they be reverts of unconstructive, but good faith, edits? I just reverted one of those and am wondering if I can put it into the table.
- This has been a problem for other students too. Users with more advanced tools, like Hugggle, often beat newer vandal fighters to vandalism. How about this: At least 5 need to be your reverts, the rest can be others, but you must explain if you think the revert was good or bad. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 22:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Also, a question, do I have to revert the vandalism to put it on this table? Because, when Iโm recent changes patrolling, all the vandalism gets reverted by other people within seconds of it happening, so I canโt get to the vandalism in time to revert it.
Also, I reverted some blatant vandalism and used a 4im template, I was wondering if the edit constituted that. I was confident it did, but that was my first time, so I just wanted to check with a more experienced editor. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Mast&diff=prev&oldid=1202184356 Shadestar474 (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Reported to AIV for the first time! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1202440770 I wouldโve put it in the table, but it was full. Shadestar474 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)