User:Michael Anon/CVUA

Below is some tasks I have set. Please answer the questions when you have spare time. I will use it to judge, as well as your other work, to see whether you are ready to graduate from the academy and request rollback at WP:PERM.

Tasks I

I've already briefly looked through all the pages referenced, but will re-read them more thoroughly to ensure I haven't missed anything. Michael Anon (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:VAND Done Michael Anon (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Read WP:NOTVAND Read as a section of WP:VAND Michael Anon (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Read WP:AGF Done Michael Anon (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Read WP:VAND This is the same page as the first one on the list… Michael Anon (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Read WP:WARN Done Michael Anon (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Read WP:GAIV Done Michael Anon (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Taking your word for it! Please refer to these as often as you can, there is some really good information in these, which will be useful thorughout your academy. I may ask some questions on this in this section, so keep your eye out. Sorry about doubling vand :)--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 16:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Task II

Please find 4 diffs of vandalism you have reverted. Explain why you thought it was appropriate to use your tools to revert it Done Michael Anon (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Question: Do just you want diffs of vandalism where I have assumed bad faith and given a level three or higher warning or is any diff which has resulted in a vandalism template warning acceptable? Michael Anon (talk)

Any vandalism reverts will be fine. However, please explain why it was vandalism, not good faith.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 16:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Index	Article	Editor	Edit(s)	Revert	Response	Explanation
1	Scottish National Party	Wgmlwgml98	[1]	[2]	[3]	Silly vandalism: addition of a disruptive allegation ("Their main policy is to destroy the UK because they have no brains!!") Y--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 17:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
2	European Union	Wgmlwgml98	[4]	[5]	[6]	Silly vandalism: two unsubstantiated references to corruption; given Wgmlwgml98's history, I assumed that the comments were added purely to disrupt Wikipedia Y although, editors can change so always keep that in mind--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 17:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC) I accept that editors can change, but this edit was part of a series of unconstructive modifications and was made just eight minutes after the last instance of vandalism. Moreover, the repeated and unsubstantiated references to corruption alone suggest that the edit is unconstructive. Michael Anon (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
3	Dawood Ibrahim	110.225.167.213	[7]	[8]	[9]	Silly vandalism: changing the name, age and birth place of the subject for no reason Y--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 17:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
4	Dawood Ibrahim	220.227.71.113	[10], [11], [12], [13] and [14]	[15]	[16]	Silly vandalism: repeated changes of names, places and industries to more "amusing" variants Y--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 17:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Please find 3 diff of good faith edits you have reverted. Why were they good faith, not vandalism? Done Michael Anon (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- The following reverts are essentially identical: they are all reverts of the first and only contribution by the editor and remove one or more Example images added to an article. On this basis, I interpreted the edits as tests and notified the editors with the {{subst:uw-test1}} or {{subst:welcometest}} templates, the latter of which I have since adopted for similar edits due to the increased amount of information it provides potentially constructive new users.

Index	Article	Editor	Edit	Revert	Response
1	Colin Morgan	AlioseRaniose	[17]	[18]	[19] Y--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 17:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
2	David Anders	76.171.235.131	[20]	[21]	[22] Y--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 17:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
3	Raven-Symoné	173.77.128.112	[23]	[24]	[25] Y--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 17:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Really impressed with the tables. I like the way you have handled the reverts. Your ability to assume good faith shows your understanding side, which also shows that you can tell what is and what isn't vandalism. Great work.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 17:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Michael Anon (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please find 3 correct reports you have made at WP:AIV Done Michael Anon (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- 209.12.14.250 (report) Response: IP blocked for one month
- 71.192.223.167 (report) Response: IP blocked for 31 hours
- 96.49.130.91 (alias Marimari5858) (report) Response: IP blocked for 31 hours; account blocked indefinitely

Good, I like the fact that in 2 of them you have provided diffs, which really makes things easier for the admin.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 16:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to provide links to all relevant diffs in future. Michael Anon (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please find one failed report at AIV. Why did you think the user wasn't blocked? How will you use this in the future to help you report? Done Michael Anon (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Question: Do you mean one of my reports or any unsuccessful report? Michael Anon (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I mean an unsuccesful report.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 17:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The most recent failed report was Tom Reedy's report against 140.200.7.58 (report) (response). This report failed because the IP had been insufficiently warned. Although the IP had received six previous warnings, the last was given two months ago. Assuming good faith, the IP could have belonged to another person at that point. The present editor therefore needed to at least be warned about their behaviour to encourage them to edit constructively - blocking is a last resort. A further problem was that there had been no final warning and therefore no direct indication of the possible consequences of unconstructive editing that might persuade the person to beneficially modify Wikipedia.

The lessons I would take from this report are that IP warnings don't last long when assuming good faith and in any event there must be a final warning before a report is made to WP:AIV.

Yeah, IP's are very different compared to users. For example, after a new user has vandalised a page 3 times and has had 3 warnings, you can probably tell it's a vandal only account and then report. Where as with an IP, it's not an account, so warnings have to be handed out differently. --Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 21:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A user has blanked a wiki page. What do you check before reverting? Done Michael Anon (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- I examine the content that was deleted and evaluate whether there was a legitimate reason for it to be removed (which the user may have mentioned in their edit summary). Material that could be legitimately blanked includes copyright violations, personal attacks and (the example from some earlier reading) inaccurate or biased information about a living person.

Yeah, you bring up some good reasons. Also, make sure that its not this.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 21:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the template. I had seen the criterion while looking through the criteria for speedy deletion, but hadn't thought to include it because I didn't think it would be especially common, instead acknowledging that I had only provided an incomplete list of legitimate reasons for blanking. I would be interested to know the rationale behind the criterion - why should the sole substantial author of a page be allowed to delete a constructive Wikipedia entry? Doesn't that constitute ownership? Michael Anon (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a really interesting question. There are some basic ground rules if it is a constructive page, for example, the author must be one of few or the only editor who has contributed to the page. As for ownership, I think its more out of courtesy that if an editor isn't too happy on their newly created page, it can be deleted and recreated at another date. If there is a problem, the page can always be restored by a sysop or steward.Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 09:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

An IP address has just been unblocked after a block was given them for 24hrs because they vandalised. They, as soon as the block expires, have resumed vandalisng wikipedia, 3 times. Do you:

A - Give them a general note for unconstructive editing

B - Give them an only warning

C - Report them immediately to WP:AIV

Done Michael Anon (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The starting point for this scenario has to be assuming good faith: assuming that the editor is trying to help Wikipedia. The extent to which this presumption could be rebutted would be based on the IP's edits; if the edits could be unambiguously construed as unconstructive, which I will assume is the case in this scenario, I would suggest that the presumption could be reasonably rebutted.

However, there is a further complication in this scenario: the edits were made by an IP address. Assuming good faith, I would presume that the editor were different to the one blocked and new to Wikipedia. The fact that the block was short and the vandalism started immediately after it lapsed would suggest that the editor might be the same person given the short amount of time for the IP to be reallocated. However, the determining factor in whether the assumption of good faith could be rebutted would be the nature of the edits. If they represented the same type of vandalism and focused on the same subject, it would strongly suggest that the same person was responsible. I would therefore issue {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} for "excessive [and] continuous disruption from a … specific IP" (option B). On the other hand, if the vandalism were of a different type or focused on a different topic, I would assume that the editor were new and issue a specific warning template for each page unconstructively edited, starting at level 1 and escalating as appropriate (option A).

.To your former comment, is it good to assume good faith if the IP has vandalised, 3 times as it says? What I would do, is issue an Only warning, and if they persist, immediately report. As you said, IP editors are hard to tell if it is the same person. But if they have been blocked before, we have to think of the damage they are causing to the site.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 16:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:AGF is that you always start by assuming good faith; evidence to the contrary (such as three instances of vandalism) can then rebut the presumption. I acknowledge that the IP is responsible for damage to Wikipedia, but this damage is easily reverted. Moreover, without some kind of evidence that the editor is the same, it seems unfair to penalise a potentially new and inexperienced user with their final warning after three edits simply because the IP was previously blocked for vandalism. In any event, the difference between our conclusions are minor: I would wait for two more instances of vandalism before requesting a block; you would wait one. I believe that this is a worthwhile delay to encourage, so far as is reasonably possible, constructive edits by IPs. Michael Anon (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It's always good to assume good faith, but that's when it is an innocent test edit or something minor, not vandalism.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 17:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Following greater understanding of the technical meaning of "vandalism" and the extent of the assumption of good faith, I would agree with your conclusion and choose option B in the scenario regardless of the type and location of the vandalism. Michael Anon (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please find (if any) 1 report you have made at WP:RFPP, because there has been a lot of vandalism from several users/IP's on that page Done Michael Anon (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Olympic Games (request) Response: granted temporary semi-protection until the conclusion of the 2012 Summer Olympics

This report is good. I like the fact you have suggested an idea, which was used, showing your understanding.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 16:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Has a vandalising user/IP ever caused you any stress? If so, how did you handle it? Please state the user/IP name Done Michael Anon (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- In short, vandals haven't caused me any stress because

the majority of people edit to benefit Wikipedia;
no permanent damage is caused by vandalism; and
we have the technical advantage.

Question: How have you dealt with these issues?--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 16:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Vandals haven't caused me any stress and there have therefore been no "issues" to deal with. Michael Anon (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So, then, how would you deal with it if you came across the above situations?--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 16:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I still don't completely understand your question (what situations are you referring to?), but assume that you are asking what I would do if I did become stressed. My response would simply be to walk away and find something else to do until I felt able to edit calmly again. Michael Anon (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I was asking you what to do if you became stressed.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 17:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Task III

Please go into recent changes to and revert vandalism for 10 - 15 minutes. Please show the diffs, show the warnings, and, if any, show reports

Doing... Michael Anon (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Writing up report… Michael Anon (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Done Michael Anon (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Index	Article	Editor	Edit	Revert	Response	Notes
1	List of Harry Potter characters	115.244.47.170	[26]	[27]	N/A	ClueBot NG beat me to the revert… - Damn that bot!--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 09:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
2	Stand-up comedy	173.55.185.214	[28]	[29]	[30]	Removed inappropriate comment on additional tricks used by stand-up comedians - Y--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 09:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
3	Corey Cogdell	121.45.88.189	[31]	[32]	N/A	ClueBot NG beat me to the revert… - Grrrr :)--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 09:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
4	Corey Cogdell	121.45.88.189	[33]	[34]	N/A	Morning Sunshine beat me to the revert… - Morning is very experienced in this area--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 09:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
5	TJ Baník Ružiná	95.102.97.207	[35] and [36]	[37]	[38]	I was very suspicious of the name modifications (especially the addition of Nescafé) and therefore suspected vandalism. However, having no clear proof that the names were incorrect, I reverted and added a note requesting sources to the editor's talk page. - Yeah, I wouldn't say this is clear cut vandalism, but the user should've povided an explanation.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 09:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC) I wouldn't definitively class this as vandalism either - I just logged it as an edit I made while on patrol. Michael Anon (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
6	Herpes zoster	58.167.45.229	[39]	[40]	[41]	Removed inaccurate description of the origins of the virus - Y I'll accept--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 09:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
7	Indian Rebellion of 1857	115.249.163.78	[42]	[43]	[44]	Returned content removed without explanation. While I tried to assume good faith, this was the second unconstructive edit in just over a week and all four edits by the IP had been reverted (albeit for somewhat different reasons). I also found it difficult to believe that the removal of two sections of content was completely accidental. I therefore made no faith assumption and provided a level 2 warning about deletion of content. - I would, myself AGF and revert, then provide a level 1 warning. Remember, IP's can be different users.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 09:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Yes, it does seem to be rather difficult to determine the extent to which good faith should be assumed for an edit… Michael Anon (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Y Again, great work! I'm just going to go over your contribs and see whether I think you are ready for rollback.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 09:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that I'm not actually interested in gaining the rollback permission at the moment - I much prefer to manually evaluate every contribution an editor has made to a page and add edit summaries explaining any reverts. I applied to CVUA to improve my understanding of vandalism policies and have my contributions evaluated by an experienced editor, not to gain any particular permission as a result. Michael Anon (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thats fine. I'm pretty unsure what to do here, all of our students who join, usually join to get rollback at the end. Have you installed twinkle? and, yeah, thats fine, If you dont wish to have rollback, thats fine :)--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 10:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have tried using Twinkle, albeit briefly, but prefer to check and preview my changes in a way that the tool simply doesn't permit (another reason for my rejection of rollback). Michael Anon (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thats fine. So, have you got any questions, etc? I would like you to get something good from this, which I hope you have!! What things would you like to know/understand better?--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 10:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've definitely learnt that the extent to which good faith should be assumed is far more complicated than I had expected; I hope to continue to develop my understanding of the policy as I remove unconstructive edits. However, I do have one question: under what circumstances should warnings be returned to an editor's talk page if removed by the editor? My understanding is that while "notice[s] regarding … active sanction[s]" cannot be removed, this only extends to blocking templates, not warnings. Is this correct and does the policy differ for IP addresses? Michael Anon (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This policy does not differ for IP addresses. Editors/Anon's can remove warnings. What they cant remove are unblock requests until the block has ended or the blocking templates until the block has expired. If users persist on removing them, they will hae their access to their talk revoked.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 11:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I think you've now answered all the questions I have for the moment. Michael Anon (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please then revert 3 good faith edits. Show the diffs, and show any interaction you had with that user Done Michael Anon (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Index	Article	Editor	Edit	Revert	Response	Notes
1	New moon	41.135.134.93	[45]	[46]	[47]	Assumed good faith and categorised the modification as a test
2	Sinhagad	103.1.102.141	[48]	[49]	[50]	Assumed good faith and categorised the modification as a test
3	Avan Jogia	Wikismartgirl	[51], [52] and [53]	[54]	[55]	Given that all the edits contained tests of one variety or another, I undid them all, even removing potentially accurate but uncited information about a living person

Y--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 11:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have created this rather than using others' resources. I may use others when deemed appropriate.