User:Vertium/CVUA/Jennie--x
< User:Vertium | CVUA
Hello Jennie--x, 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
[edit]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.
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 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.
- Q1. Please describe below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
- The difference between these two edits is the motive of the user. A good faith edit is when a user sets out to improve the project, either because they see wrong information or want to add information. A vandal edit is when someone sets out to deliberately disrupt the project and comes in various forms. A distinction between good faith edits and vandalism is important because by referring to good faith edits as vandalism, we may alienate (especially new) editors.
- To tell them apart, I would look at the revision differences of a page. Whilst reverting a person who had made errors in good faith, this would be generally easy. This is because good faith editors would make no attempt to change, mask or disguise their edits, as they are unaware that what they have done/are doing is wrong. A vandal may make attempts to disguise his/her actions, they may make complicated maneuvers, e.g. page-moving, lying in the edit summary, falsifying a minor edit. It may be necessary to assess the page revision history in more depth if a vandal has taken such evasive measures.
- Excellent! Intent or motive are key things to consider, and when the vandal is particularly tricky, it can take a bit of time and effort to determine which you're looking at. One other tool is the user contributions list, which will show all the edits that an editor has performed. While not a perfect tool (since an IP editor may represent many different people), you can often gain good insight from their contribution history to help you understand where they're coming from. Also, please remember to sign your entries here, so I know it's you who did them. Vertium When all is said and done 11:49, 16 July 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
- Vandalism
--Jennie | ☎ 17:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well done! Vertium When all is said and done 17:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Reversion Review
[edit]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. Also, please explain your rationale for your decision. If you disagree with the categorization and handling of a reversion, please describe how you would have handled it.
Reversion of Good Faith edits:
- Yes, I think this fits WP:AGF. The user wanted to assist the project, choosing to provide an Indian-script to ensure that the article was detailed as possible, and therefore made his edits in good faith. Additionally, I think this meets the WP:NOTVAND criteria of using incorrect style or mark up, as the 'Rollbacker' states that Wikipedia doesn't use Indian script. --Jennie | ☎ 21:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Question: But is it true that WP doesn't use Indian script? It might be, but I can't seem to find a policy that says WP doesn't (and I see lots of it around, so if I reverted this, it would indeed be AGF. I probably would have left this standing, though it's definitely a judgment call.
- Ah, of course! I used the benefit of hindsight there, and just assumed that the Reverter was aware of a policy. If I was reverting, I would have not known and therefore left it. I think this historical discussion at WP:Vernacular scripts may help, but also, interestingly, Jimmy Wales states that he is totally against the use of non-English scripts in English Wikipedia articles, here (although this is in article titles). --Jennie | ☎ 18:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not sure if I agree with reverting at all in this instance. An 'ambition' refers to the desire to achieve something, and a 'target' refers to getting to a goal. It's quite hard to discriminate which term to use. It's not vandalism - as the user believes that they are correcting (and therefore assisting) the project, and I would agree that this would obviously meet WP:AGF if it was to be reverted. My problem lies with choosing to revert, personally I think I would leave the decision to someone who is active in Wikiproject Politics, Wikiproject Scotland or simply someone interested in Scottish independence, who could be more discriminate as I wouldn't want to rush in to reverting something quite closely related in meaning and on a (potentially) contentious article. Possibly even add a: [dubious – discuss] template? --Jennie | ☎ 21:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree I wouldn't' likely revert this as it's an innocent update. If I saw a lot of back and forth on it, I'd try and get a discussion going on the article's talk page.
- Justin Bieber (with my apologies)
- Hahaha! I bet you would probably overlook any vandal edits made to this page :P In this instance, I think the Rollbacker was wrong to assume good faith. The editor purposefully introduced false "factual" errors that attacked the BLP personally, trying to mask the edit by providing a source that does not verify the information. Therefore, I would say this meets WP:VAND criteria, and a level-1 warn to their talk-page. --Jennie | ☎ 21:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Agree As it might pain me to do, I would look to fight vandalism, even on this page. This is a good example of where there's even a reference citation which tempts some editors to consider it constructive (though if you look at the URL to which it points, the content to the article isn't supported). Even if the reference had made mention of Mr. Bieber's masculinity, it wouldn't likely be appropriate for the article per the BLP standards. Well done.
Reversions for Vandalism:
- I don't think this does meet vandal criteria, and perhaps a human (the revert being made by ClueBot) will have allocated this to a WP:AGF revert. The user included a candidate into the listing who is a genuine politician. Although their place as a Republican Party vice presidential candidate cannot be verified without sources, it seems probable that the user wanted to assist the article by listing another politician. If he/she had listed Justin Bieber for example, it would become obvious to the Rollbacker that the user is introducting deliberate factual errors, rather than unintentional ones. Accidental misinformation meets WP:NOTVAND criteria. --Jennie | ☎ 21:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Agree Spot on.
- In some ways this could be seen as 'weak vandalism', as it breaks WP:NPOV and certainly isn't encyclopedic. However, as to not bite, I think this falls under the WP:NOTVAND criteria of users (especially new ones) not understanding the purpose of Wikipedia. Although it may appear to more experienced users as vandalism, as it's a weak attack of the company the article features, new users may not be fully aware of what they are doing. Therefore, I would either Manual rollback or list as WP:AGF, and leave a note on the users talk page about the aims of this project and constructive editing. --Jennie | ☎ 21:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Agree Good evaluation of the issue and plan for addressing.
- This is quite tricky. I provided an identical case for one of my WP:AGF edits above, here, in which a new user replaces two statistics given for ones they assume to be correct, despite not changing the source to show where they got their information from and therefore introducing unverified, deliberate factual errors into the project. However, I think it's important to take this in a case-by-case basis. Unless its obvious that the editor wants to introduce deliberate factual errors, I'm not sure this can be classed as vandalism. If the user had changed the mass of the Earth, for example, from 5.9736×1024 kg to 1g, I think it would be obvious to revert per WP:VAND, but I don't think changing 11 to 310 aircraft is something that reaches such extremities. I have my doubts, but I would say it was a WP:AGF rollback, especially seeing as they may not understand the purpose of Wikipedia. --Jennie | ☎ 21:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Disagree (sort of). Your evaluation is correct and the approach is sound - 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". I agree that AGF would be the softer way to revert this. I would have a look at this editor's contributions to see whether they have a tendency to "vandalize" or perform more "innocent" edits and revert accordingly.
- I agree with your disagreement (if this makes sense!). I wasn't sure of the extreme increase within the context of the article and as I said above, more knowledge about the extremities would have led me to make a WP:VAND rollback, as opposed to me suggesting WP:AGF. --Jennie | ☎ 18:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Challenging" was the intent and if you're "on the fence" (where you might find yourself when you encounter changes like this) - then good "balance" is required. The policies around VAND and BITE (as so many WP policies) can be used to argue with one another, and you seem to have a clear grasp on how to look at these. They're not always cut-and-dried. You did really well and you'll notice that I don't mark things as "correct" or "incorrect", as I believe you've made a clear case for each choice.
Graduated
[edit]Great work Jennie, 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 11:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)