User:Vertium/CVUA/Bradshaws1

Hello Bradshaws1, welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Every person I mentor 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. If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me here or at my talk page.

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. As well as giving you important information, each section will contain various tasks, 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 as part of the task, please 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.

Getting Started

To get started, please reply below with the tools you have available today. I see that you don't have rollback rights yet, but you'll get them if you complete the academy. Given that, it's unlikely you've gotten STiki yet (as it almost always requires rollback rights to get) but you might have downloaded Twinkle. Just let me know and we can get started. Thanks! Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 14:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a small amount of experience with Twinkle. I would like to find out more about rollback. --Bradshaws1 (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Great! Twinkle has some rollback capabilities, and going through the CVUA is a good step to gain rollback rights on WP. The primary difference is that once you have rollback rights, you can revert an entire entry (and any intervening entries made by the same editor) all with one click. Of course, there's a risk associated with that as well, which is why we spend some time ensure that candidates recognize vandalism before clicking on such a powerful tool. We generally go through a few exercises and give you a chance to practice with Twinkle. I've put the introductory steps below.

Resources and Process for Fighting 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 recognize the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labeling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks. Please edit this section and leave a {{done}} ( Done) notation here.

Once you've reviewed the above content...

1. You should start reviewing of articles (I typically review Recent Changes) and look at the Diffs on the various files. Of course, when someone makes multiple changes (either because they have made genuine multiple edits or trying to do sneaky vandalism), you may have to look at multiple Diffs on the article.

2. When you discover something that needs to be reverted, Twinkle provides you three choices on the Diff page:

Rollback [AGF] (green) - for reverting good faith edits that just aren't constructive or are poorly sourced or violate some policy (e.g. WP:BLP) - Please be sure to always providing an edit summary for why a good faith edit was reverted. If there's consistent reversion of content, please start a discussion on the article's talk page and don't engage in any edit warring.
Rollback (blue) - for reverting edits where you'd like to provide an edit summary for the rollback
Rollback [VANDAL] (red) - for reverting content that constitutes vandalism.

3. After the revert, go to the user's talk page and leave the appropriate warning. Twinkle makes this very easy to accomplish by using the "warn" tab. For explanations of warning sequence and examples, see here.

4. I'll check in and review your reverts or other edits (usually once or twice a day) and provide you feedback. If you'll let me know what time zone you're in and when you typically edit, I can be more effective in giving you timely feedback. Of course, if you have any urgent questions, always feel free to leave me a message on my talk page and I'll get back to you ASAP.

I hope this has helped, if it's confusing in any part, please let me know and I'm happy to explain further. Also see WP:BITE and WP:AGF for more information. You probably have it, but if you don't have Twinkle, you can install it by going on your Preferences then Gadgets and click Twinkle (make sure you save!).

Your question on vandalism

Moved from User talk:Vertium

– moved here for a more focused discussion --

How do I tell which edits might be vandalism when recent changes patrolling? --Bradshaws1 (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! First, please let me know if you have read the the documents I mentioned above. It will be really helpful if you do and let me know as I asked, so I can be sure I know where you are in the process. Since we can't chat realtime, it's helpful if you keep me updated, so I have the proper context for your questions. Thanks.

To me, this [this article] gives a very good description of what vandalism is. Also [this article] provides insight into all the types of vandalism and [this one explains what isn't] vandalism. Again, please let me know what you've done and I'll give you the next step after you've reverted a few instances of vandalism.

I have it in a link above, but to save you the step, here's a scenario that you might find yourself doing when reverting vandalism:

Here are the warning sequences (using Twinkle) related to vandalism:

User has written I love Chris LOL! :) in the article on Monarch butterflies. This is their first edit on Wikipedia. Issue them a general note for vandalism (which van be found on twinkle by clicking the TW tab near the top right of the page and click on 'vandalism'). This is the same warning shown in WP:WARN.
The user has reverted your revert and has replaced the vandalism, or created new vandalism (or performed any other vandalism on the same day. Do the same process as above but give them a level 2 warning ( labelled as a caution on Twinkle)
The user is now seen as purposely vandalizing Wikipedia as they have, on the same day gone onto a completely different article and have placed 'Dfdfhhgrhdhdthdthdthdthdthgdhdthdhthhtdtfhdhdhdthdtfghfhtdh'. Like before, give them a warning but now under level 3 (labelled as warning on Twinkle). This message informs the user that they maybe blocked if they continue.
The user has continued to vandalize in another article. Issue them their final warning (level 4 labelled final warning using Twinkle). If, you are dealing with a registered account (not an IP) it is probably clear that this is a vandalism only account and you can report at WP:AIV using Twinkle. You click on the TW tab and click 'ARV'. Click on the 'select report type' and click vandalism. Then it asks you to tick a box, asking you why you have reported them. Click on 'Evidently a vandalism only account'. Note - you have an option to add a message. Then click 'submit query'.
If you have given the registered user another chance or the IP has continued to vandalize after the final warning, then report at WP:AIV using Twinkle and click on 'vandalism after final warning' with optional message and submit query.

If there is a user who already has a warning for vandalizing Wikipedia (on the same day you revert the vandalism) there is no need to start from a general note. If they were given a caution, give them a warning, if they were given a final warning on the same day, report them.

Hope that helps. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 02:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say I have read most of the documents. I think I may already be familiar with much of it, or at least in outline. --Bradshaws1 (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. The purpose of the CVUA process is to become more intimately familiar with it - probably more so than in "outline". :) In order to get rollback rights, it's usually best to show that you have a strong grasp of what constitutes vandalism and what doesn't. If you get a chance to read them again, it could be helpful. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 10:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. What I was trying to say, I suppose, was that I was already familiar with some of it before I enrolled. I hope we can both see where I'm coming from :) It's OK, I'm reading the material, doing some patrolling, then referring back to the documents again, when I need to. It's all going well so far! --Bradshaws1 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverts

I was just about to revert this, but I was beaten to it by another user . I would have chosen rollback (blue) in Twinkle and warned the user with either uw-test1 or uw-test2. Which one would you think is better? --Bradshaws1 (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That happens sometimes, and ClueBot will get the majority of the really blatant bits of vandalism, though ClueBot's algorithms miss quite a bit because the scoring mechanism errs on the side of AGF. Your choice of rollback options (blue) would have been appropriate. While you would traditionally start with a level-1 warning (because you should AGF), materialscientist used a level-2 warning to send a slightly sterner message. If you believe it clearly wasn't intended as a "test", a level-2 is appropriate.

I just reverted this. I chose rollback vandal (red) and warned the user with uw-vandalism2 on their talk page. --Bradshaws1 (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly the right edit and warning.

I reverted this. I chose rollback (blue) and posted uw-delete1 to their talk page using Twinkle. I noticed that this was this IP's first contribution, i.e. no history of vandalism, which left me unsure what to do for a short time. --Bradshaws1 (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That was the correct warning to give on the talk page, but I notice that it's once again been deleted. A quick search on Google indicates that there is no "Campazon" in the Wizard101 game, so the entire thing may have been inaccurate in the first place and therefore deserved deletion. The key here is that the individuals never left an edit summary. I have since posted a note on the talk page of the editor who deleted it after you, so we'll see if it's supposed to be there or not.

I reverted this. I chose rollback vandal (red) and warned with uw-vandalism3. I made this decision because there was a history of previous warnings, and also this IP has previously been blocked. Was that the correct decision? --Bradshaws1 (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a judgment call, because when I look at the user's talk page, I notice (first) that it's an IP, so there's no way to know that all the previous vandalism was caused by the same individual. I also notice that there hasn't been any vandalism by that IP in the past few days, so the guidance is to start over with level-1 warnings if there's no recent vandalism, because the historical content could have been done by someone completely different.

You are welcome to continue posting here.. though I'll be looking through your contributions as well, spot checking things. There will be a mini-quiz here over the next day or so. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 11:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, thank you. --Bradshaws1 (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism - A Quick Quiz

Q1. Please describe below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.

The difference is the intention of the user. A good faith edit is one that was intended to help improve Wikipedia, regardless of whether it actually does so or not. A good-faith edit could appear disruptive if the user is unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy.

A vandalism edit is an edit where the intention is to disrupt or otherwise compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. It can sometimes be difficult to tell them apart, but one way is to check the previous contributions of the user for bad-faith edits. If the user has a history of vandalism, it indicates that the edit may be vandalism. If the user is an IP, this can be inaccurate, as IPs can change periodically. Another way to tell the difference is to observe the behaviour of the editor. A good-faith editor will usually (hopefully!) heed warnings given to them. A vandal may try to make their edits more difficult to detect. They may use sneaky tactics, such as making two bad edits and only reverting one, reverting legitimate edits, using multiple accounts etc. When warnings are given, they may respond by vandalising other articles. Also, a good-faith editor is likely to attempt to use an encyclopedic tone. The tone of a vandal edit is more likely to be non-encyclopedic. --Bradshaws1 (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Spot on. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 13:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Q2. 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 reverts below.

Good faith

[1] Y
[2] Y
[3] Y

[4] (an alternative) Y

I find these types of edits more difficult to identify.

Comment These types of edits are those that are content additions without any citation to a WP:RS, a sentence fragment thrown into the middle of a paragraph, etc. (especially frequent on BBLP articles. As you correctly noted above, the intent of the edit seems quite genuine and the content addition seems as thought it's meant to be constructive, but it just isn't. As you come across them, add them here. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 10:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be finding and identifying these quite well.

Vandalism

[5] (this was a bit complicated, as there were two vandalism edits in a row) Y Well done!
[6] Y
[7] Y

Do You Agree?

The following diffs illustrate various reverts that have been done by other editors or rollbackers. Please indicate whether you agree with the revert and it's categorization as either a good-faith revert or vandalism, and please explain your rationale for your decision. This is the last formal step to your graduation from the Academy.

Reversion of Good Faith edits:

Billa II

That's a difficult one. One one hand, the reverter says that Indian script is no longer allowed on Wikipedia. I did some research, and found a line on WikiProject India that supports that statement. However, I am not sure how much weight this statement has, or whether it would apply here, as I don't know the ins and outs of the consensus on Indic script usage. In addition, Indian script is already used in many articles in a similar context, which suggests it could be included here. I think I would simply leave it be, because I am not an expert in this particular issue, and perhaps raise it on the talk page. I agree that the first edit was in good faith, because the editor was trying to improve Wikipedia by adding information. --Bradshaws1 (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree There is widespread use of Indic and Tamil script within articles and the only hard-and-fast thing I've seen (as much as anything around here can be hard-and-fast

) is that there should never be non-English characters in an article title. Good call!

Scottish sovereignty

I agree that the edit was in good faith, because the two terms are of similar meaning, and this editor thought that their word was a better choice, therefore they were trying to improve Wikipedia. I do not think I would revert this edit, as I am not sure what the best word is, and both words seem like reasonable choices. It may be a good idea to discuss it on the talk page, and get the opinion of someone more knowledgeable on the subject. --Bradshaws1 (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree I probably wouldn't have reverted myself because, as you mention, the words are of similar meaning and I'm unclear as to the value of one word's usage over another. I might make a note and stop back here in a day or two and see if there's an edit war underway (in case the words do have particular meaning in the context of Scottish independence) and suggest a discussion on the talk page.

Justin Bieber (with my apologies)

Hehehe I gather you are not a fan of Bieber?

I agree with this revert, as the cited source does not support this editor's statement. I disagree with its classification as good faith, as it looks like vandalism to me, as it appears to be a deliberate attempt to attack the subject of the article. Of course, there is a chance that the edit was made in good faith, and that the editor made a genuine mistake. You may wish to assume so, if you want to be nice. If the user has a history of vandalism, it suggests it might be vandalism. --Bradshaws1 (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You are correct in that I am not a fan of the Beeb... but his article is always good fodder for revert reviews!

Agree This edit didn't appear to be good faith and I'd have probably given a level-1 warning (presuming a check of his contribs and talk page were otherwise clean).

Reversions for Vandalism:

Republican Party vice presidential candidates

I think it should be reverted, as there are no cited sources to confirm the statement. It is likely to be a good faith edit, as the person mentioned is a politician, so the inclusion of her name seems plausible. It could still possibly be a sneaky form of vandalism. If the name of a non-politician was inserted, it would make it much more likely to be vandalism. --Bradshaws1 (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree I would have noted this as AGF. News reports definitely covered the potential of her being named, but revertible because there were no citations.

Singapore Airlines

The line "Bookings are expensive" appears to violate NPOV. It could be vandalism, as it could be said to attack the subject or disrupt Wikipedia, or it could be a good faith edit made by a user who is unfamiliar with the NPOV guidelines. I think the line should be removed, as it violates NPOV. It could be added back with a citation to a reliable source, but in a form such as: "In a survey in year X of Y number of people, Z% of people thought the bookings were too expensive". --Bradshaws1 (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree Excellent suggestion on the alternative way it could be represented.

US Navy

Yes, I agree with the revert, because the source does not support the reverted edit (I consider Reuters to be a reliable source). I agree with its categorisation as vandalism, as the reverted numbers are an order of magnitude greater than those in the second edit. Quoted figures can vary slightly, but you would not expect a variation as large as that relative to the number. Therefore, it indicates it may be an attempt to deliberately introduce factual errors. However, the edit could still have been in good faith. The editor could have genuinely thought that these were the correct figures, and simply not provided a source, or could have made some other mistake. --Bradshaws1 (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree It might be easy to think of this as AGF, but it's one of those things where the numbers being edited are orders of magnitude in difference. A quick check finds that it takes 3-4 years and $12-15 billion for each carrier, so to increase the number of aircraft carriers by 30-fold seems unlikely. Also, in checking the reference provided in that section of the article, there's a direct quote that says "we need 11 aircraft carriers".

Outstanding Questions? Level of Comfort?

You've done a great job on the challenges I've put forth and I've been looking at your reverts and you seem to be doing quite well. Before we officially "graduate" you and recommend you for rollbacker rights, I just wanted to get your perspective on level of comfort. If you have any additional questions, I'm happy to help. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 15:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am generally happy with everything that I have learnt. I feel that I have a good grasp of what is and what isn't vandalism, and how to deal with both. I cannot think of any other questions at the moment, but if I have any in the future, I'll let you know. --Bradshaws1 (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Graduated

Great work Bradshaws1, keep in touch if there's anything I can do to help. See you out there in the ongoing battle against vandalism. Thanks for all you do to make WP a better place. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 03:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)