User:Mz7/CVUA/MapleSyrupRain

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.

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.

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.

`The start`

Good faith and vandalism

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.

Vandalism is purposeful violation of Wikipedia policy and is made with malicious intent, such as repeated copyright violations, "funny" vandalism (replacing or adding profanity or crude humor), or illegitimate page blanking. Good faith edits are unhelpful, but not malicious edits such as test edits, edit warring, and copyright violations made before their first WP:COPYVIO warning. Good faith edits are also usually made by new users due to the new environment and unfamiliarity with core Wikipedia principles.

Really, it comes down to the context of the edit itself. It's usually pretty obvious what is and isn't vandalism, most of the time "bad faith" edits stick out like a sore thumb. Checking user contribs is also a good way to discern the intent of the editor.

MapleSyrupRain (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the correct understanding. The key is the intent of the contributor. If a user submits an edit with the intention of helping the encyclopedia, that edit is good faith, regardless of whether it is helpful. Repeatedly submitting copyright violations can still be good-faith editing if the user simply does not or refuses to understand how copyrights work; refusing to understand or listen to others is a form of disruptive editing, but if done with the intention of helping the project, it's still technically "good-faith". "Good faith" is not equivalent to "good". Editors who are being disruptive can still be sanctioned, even if they were editing in good faith. It's important to recognize this disctinction because mislabelling edits as vandalism can turn away contributors, bite newcomers, and creates animosity in what's supposed to be a collaborative environment. Mz7 (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I got the repeated copyvio thing from WP:VANDAL under Types of Vandalism, where it says "Uploading or using material on Wikipedia in ways which violate Wikipedia's copyright policies after having been warned is vandalism." I get what you're saying though! Thanks :) MapleSyrupRain (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2017 (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

First time copyvio, new user
- ? I'm not seeing the copyright violation. What was the source you compared it to? Mz7 (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  - Oh! Sorry, I think I pasted the wrong link there. Lemme find a new one. MapleSyrupRain (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    - Here's one (I think, it's kind of hard to find them)
Wasn't malicious, just an easy mistake to make
No reason to suspect vandalism, new user, not promo/ad

Vandalism

Completed! MapleSyrupRain (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@MapleSyrupRain: So, a copyright violation occurs when an editor copies content that someone else wrote without permission. Wikipedia has stricter and more complex rules when it comes to using copyrighted content. Except for limited quotations, an author must typically license their work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license (or similar license) in order for us to accept their text. It's not enough to simply say, "I give permission for Wikipedia to use my content." This edit that you recently linked to doesn't add any copyrighted content, so it's not a copyright violation. In any case, I think you have the right understanding of the distinction between good-faith editing and vandalism, which was the main purpose of this exercise, so I've posted the next assignment below. Mz7 (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've specified. That was just a random good faith edit and not another copyvio. I lost the edit that I thought was a copyvio and pasted the wrong link originally. MapleSyrupRain (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@MapleSyrupRain: Ah gotcha. Now worries, in that case. Mz7 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

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.

Please answer the following questions

Why do we warn users? To help prevent vandalism/disruptive editing and encourage helpful, good faith edits, and to explain policy/guidelines to good faith but disruptive new users. MapleSyrupRain (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Y Right, the goal with warnings is to educate users about our policies. It's possible that a vandal was simply testing Wikipedia's editing function, asking "Can I really edit this page?", as opposed to intentionally causing harm. Mz7 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

When would a 4im warning be appropriate? For a first and final warning situation, ie. a user or ip who is excessively or continuously disruptive. 4im warnings assume bad faith.MapleSyrupRain (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Y Right, 4im warnings are appropriate against particularly egregious or widespread vandalism that needs to be stopped immediately. When in doubt, however, start with levels 2-3 instead. Mz7 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it? Yeah, just type subst: in front of the template in the brackets.MapleSyrupRain (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Y Mz7 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again? Report them to WP:AIV.MapleSyrupRain (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Y Mz7 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@MapleSyrupRain: I'm very sorry for my delay in responding to you here. If you ever want to get my attention faster, feel free to {{ping}} me. I've posted the next assignment below. Let me know if you have any questions. Mz7 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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.

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}}.

I just wanted to make sure you know about Special:RecentChanges, if you use the diff link in a different window or tab you can check a number of revisions much more easily. If you enable Hovercards in the Hover section of your preferences, you can view the diff by just hovering over it. Alternately, you can press control-F or command-F and search for "tag:". some edits get tagged for possible vandalism or section blanking.

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

This template is for serious vandalism, a first and final warning.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, you may be blocked from editing.

This template is the third level of warning for users who remove speedy deletion templates from pages of their own creation without good cause.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.
This template is the third warning level against unconstructive page blanking/deletion.
MapleSyrupRain (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@MapleSyrupRain: Once again, I'm very sorry for my delay. If you would like a more immediate response, please feel free to ping me by typing {{ping|Mz7}} before your responses. I've posted your next assignment below. Mz7 (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Finding and reverting vandalism

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 AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff
1	undid twice, vandal struck again while I was dealing with aiv. 1st revert:[1]	warning [2] my aiv report [3]
2	blp, obvious vandalism: diff	warning: [4]
3	section blanking, from school IP, could've been test edit but who knows: diff	Warned here: comment
4	diff	warned here
5	diff	I feel like I used the wrong template here, it implies content dispute when what was going on was vandalism. Retrospectively should be a little more careful with TW templates
6	diff	warned
7	diff	warned
8	diff	warned here
9	diff	warned
10	diff	warned
11	diff	comment
12	diff	comment
13	diff	comment
14	diff	comment
15	diff	comment