User:Yunshui/Cwmhiraeth vandalism school

Good faith and vandalism

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

• 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 revisions below.

Good faith edits

1. A good faith edit is one in which the purpose is to improve the content of Wikipedia. The difference between good faith editing and vandalism is the attitude of mind of the perpetrator. The former is trying to improve and the second to tarnish Wikipedia.
2. A good faith editor may add unsourced material believing it will improve an article.
3. There might be occasions where inexperienced editors do not use wiki-markup correctly, mess a page up unintentionally or inadvertently edit some file text causing the image not to display.
4. There are occasions where editors change spellings, not realising which version of English an article is written in.

Y Probably the best answer I've ever seen to this question. " The difference between good faith editing and vandalism is the attitude of mind of the perpetrator," that's just about the perfect definition.

1. I reverted this good faith edit and left this warning on the editor's talk page.

Y Nice custom message - have you got that as a template somewhere or did you write it up specifically for that editor?

I wrote it for that editor because I could not find a suitable template.

2. I reverted this good faith edit and left this comment on the editor's talk page.

Y Nice of you to sort the citation out for them, too.

3. I reverted four good faith edits made by three different users, perhaps at a school in Pakistan. I left comments on all three user's talk pages.

Y I think that might actually be just the one user, judging from the additions. By the way, in case you didn't already know, you can revert multiple consecutive edits from several users in one edit by simply going to the last revision before the changes started opening it in edit mode and saving it (or by using Twinkle's "restore this version" command). Saves time and effort!

Vandalism

1.Vandalism can be the removal of sourced information, like blanking a section, the removal of which is likely to harm Wikipedia.
2.Vandalism can be the addition or substitution of rude/off topic/personal or other matter that is obviously unhelpful.
3.Vandalism is done by someone who wants to be disruptive. It can be subtle with minor alterations that might pass unnoticed but change the meaning of the topic being discussed.
4.I thought it was vandalism when someone who did not like some sweeping changes I made to an article then peppered it with "citation needed" and other tags. Others might disagree about this.

Y Yep, you've got the idea. To answer your last point: tag bombing isn't necessarily vandalism, but (per your first answer above) it depends very much on the motivation and mindset of the tagbomber. Even if it's done with the best of intentions, it's often still a form of disruption.

This is the article I considered tagbombed. I had made the error of completely rewriting the article and adding it to mainspace without prior discussion on the talk page.

Yeah, that's just straight-up pointy editing. Almost all of the information for which citations were requested could be verified at the various linked articles. One could argue that there is no need to discuss changes prior to editing; if another editor is dissatisfied with the amendments they are free to revert and start a discussion about it at that point.

1. I reverted this vandalism and left this warning on the editor's talk page.

Y Certainly vandalism, but I'm curious; why a level 2 warning? This is a dynamic IP that hadn't previously edited since June, so the vandalism is almost certainly the first edit by this individual. Conventionally, you'd kick off negotiations with a {{uw-vandal1}}, unless there's some extenuating circumstance (like a series of undetected vandalism edits or an extremely severe BLP violation) involved.

2. I reverted this vandalism and left this warning on the editor's talk page. I left this warning before I read your previous comment, but perhaps this is more serious because the perpetrator mucked up the image and was aiming to deceive rather than just messing around. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Konijeti_Rosaiah&diff=633377139&oldid=631979899

Y I'm really not sure about this one. The changes of dates seem like obvious vandalism, but the rest of this person's edits appear to be in good faith (including the change of image). That IP may be one to watch (not in a good way).

This person replaced a valid image by the words "Konijeti Rosaiah Image", which is not an image at all.

True, but bear in mind that most new editors don't get how images work (I've long ago lost count of the times I've had to explain it; I ended up writing this as a shortcut). Typing "so-and-so Image" might seem like a sensible way of generating an image of the so-and-so in question, though it assumes a fair degree of AI on the part of Wikipedia's software... I'm not saying this wasn't vandalism, just that there may be other explanations.

3. In the past I have reverted vandalism when I come across it, usually with the edit summary "unhelpful", but I have not issued warnings to the people involved. Here is one. Would a level 1 warning have been appropriate there? The words were not visible in the article but mucked up the citation. I will continue with this tomorrow.

I would definitely have slapped a warning on them for that; it's inconceivable for that to be anything other than ill-intentioned.

Warning and reporting

• Please answer the following questions
  • Why do we warn users?

In the hope that they will mend their ways and become productive editors.

Y Whilst that's true (if rather optimistic!), there are several other reasons for issuing warning messages.

To show them that Wikipedia has in place a mechanism for detecting vandalism and that Wikipedia is prepared to enforce it. In the event of further disruptive behaviour, the warning alerts other editors to the fact that this is a repeat offender.

Y That's pretty much it. Whilst you do very occasionally get editors who respond to warnings by starting to edit constructively, the most common response to warnings is for them to stop altogether when they realise someone's watching - which counts as a win in our book. And as you say, it also helps other editors (and ClueBot) know which warning/escalation to dole out next time. Even if they're deleted, warnings are easy to find in a talkpage history, whilst identifying vandalisms in a lengthy contribution history is more work for those who come after.

• • When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

It is used when somebody repeatedly blanks pages or sections in a short time period.

N Not really; the regular vandalism templates are sufficient for this. Why would we need to issue an only warning, rather than a series of escalating ones?

I see that what I was referring to was the {{subst:uw-delete4im|Article}} and I had not appreciated the difference between an "4im" warning and a level 4 warning. It seems a level 4 warning follows a level 3 warning for a persistent offender but that the "4im" warning would be used when serious vandalism takes place when there have not been previous warnings for lesser offences.

Y Yes, pretty much. If you're dealing with a persistent vandal who somehow hasn't been warned previously, or if the vandalism is severe enough to require revision deletion or even oversight, then a 4im warning is appropriate.

• • What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?

I understand that I should report their behaviour to this page.

Y Yes indeed.

• Please give examples of three warnings that you might need to use while vandal patrolling and explain what they are used for.

1. {{subst:uw-test1}} is used for low level disruption, such as making a minimally obstructive edit to see what will result. It is suitable for a first-time offender.

Y

2. {{subst:uw-vand2}} is used for a second offence of vandalism or, I would have thought, a more serious first offence.

Y Yes, on both counts (although the degree of severity is largely a subjective assessment).

3. I see that I could have used the warning {{subst:uw-error1}} in the example above where the vandal had deliberately changed a year of birth.

Y It doesn't get used very often, but yes, that's the sort of situation where it would be appropriate.

4. {{subst:uw-delete4|PageName}} is used as a final warning for someone who has repeatedly been involved in illegitimate blanking.

Y

• Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Posts the diffs of those warnings below.

1. I reverted this test edit and left this warning on the user's talk page.

Y

2. A bot reversed a page blanking but I left [1] a warning on the user's talk page.

Y There's no need to warn for Cluebot reverts - the bot does so itself (see the message immediately above yours on the talkpage).

3. A user repeatedly vandalized the page El Dorado High School (El Paso, Texas) and I reversed their actions several times and posted first this warning and then this warning on the user's talk page. The user continued to vandalize the page and was blocked by Gilliam 5 minutes later. If this had not happened, I would have continued to a level 4 warning and then would have reported this user to AIV if necessary.

Y All good.

4. A user vandalised several pages. I issued a level 2 warning about the article Boxing and he (I think subsequently) vandalized Eric Clark, ClueBot reversed this and I thought ClueBot's warning a bit mild so I issued a level 3 warning.

Y Seems like a sensible enough escalation to me. Make sure you remember to sign your warnings, though (using Twinkle makes this a lot easier).

• Find an edit which could be a test edit and revert it. Warn the user with the most appropriate template, then post the diff below.

1. I reverted this test edit and left this warning on the editor's talk page.

Y I'm not sure that constitutes a test edit; personally I'd consider that vandalism. However, in cases like this it's ultimately down to your own judgement as to what the motivation behind the edit might have been.

2. I have made several other reversions of what may be test edits and left level 1 warnings on the users' talk pages.
3. I reverted this edit and left this warning, though I'm not sure it was appropriate.

That's an odd one. It looks promotional, but the feeding cats/feet on the table bits don't gel with that assessment; it could just as easily be vandalism. I've no argument with your choice of warning though; some form of warning message was definitely necessary.

• Report 2 users to AIV and post the diffs below. Be sure to follow the guidelines and only report users where necessary; do not report simply for the sake of this task.

I note that if I find a problematic user with a red "talk", this will be their first problematic edit but if it is blue, they may have previous warnings on their talk page. However, I don't really know how to find the users with repeat problem edits who might need reporting to AIV, though I have put a couple of users mentioned above on my watchlist. Do you have any suggestions?

I reported IP user 87.244.101.70 to AIV for continuing vandalizing after a final warning. Here is the diff.

Y And I see a block has duly been handed out.

For tracking down repeat vandals, I recommend using Igloo, STiki or Huggle, all of which make it easier to spot high-frequency vandalism. Failing that, hanging around Recent changes (with regular page refreshes) is effective too.

I reported IP user 91.195.183.200 to AIV for continuing to vandalize Beckfoot School after receiving a final warning. Here is the diff. That user, presumably a pupil at the school, was subsequently blocked. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Y Good call. I suspect you already know this and it's just the way I'm reading your message above, but the pupil isn't actually blocked - it would be more correct to say that the school itself is. Whilst technically speaking blocks apply to individuals (so that if said pupil were to create an account at home and use it to edit, he'd be effectively evading the block) the practical result of an IP block like this is generally the prevention of edits from anyone at the school.

I didn't know that. I thought the IP address referred to a single internet-linked computer. If the whole school is blocked for the editing behaviour of one pupil, it might be best to consider this when deciding on the period of the block. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

We do - but not the way you'd think; schoolblocks actually tend to be longer than regular anonblocks. Schoolblocks do, however, generally allow editing with a registered account, so if little Jimmy really wants to edit Wikipedia in his lunchbreak, he can still do so - he just has to get an account (at home or via WP:ACC) first.

Dealing with difficult users

• Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

One of the motivations of trolls and vandals is the desire for recognition. If we do not react or respond to their efforts, it may discourage them from continuing their conduct. Vandalism of course needs to be reverted and prevented as far as possible within Wikipedia but in general should not be publicised outside Wikipedia for fear of encouraging copycat action. Mention in the media by name of specific vandals would delight the vandal involved.

Y I quite literally couldn't have put it better myself.

• How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?

The former is prepared to consider your viewpoint while the latter does not. The only editor who has contacted me recently over my anti-vandalism efforts was a good faith editor where I was in error. The concept of trolling is new to me. Having now read about trolling, I consider a certain editor who has spent much time harassing me, and to a more limited extent certain other users, over two years or more is a troll. Earlier various IP numbers were used and recent incidents include this and this under an IP number. I tried to avoid conflicts over the incidents because I quickly discovered that trying to argue with the user was futile. I think the behaviour has ceased and hope the user concerned has moved on in their life to something more productive.

Y That's a really interesting definition - it's not what immediately springs to mind for me but actually, as a tool for distinguishing good faith from bad faith, it's pretty good.

Page protection

• In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

Semi-protection prevents editing by unregistered users and by unconfirmed users. Any user who opens an account and makes at least ten edits will automatically become a confirmed user after four days. This form of protection is therefore useful where IPs are involved in vandalism, disruption or edit warring. Semi-protection may be temporary, and perhaps this would be suitable if there was a spike of attention by the media which was likely to die down.

Y Yes, although a brief note about your last sentence - a spike in media attention, whilst it might result in a spate of vandalism that would justify semi-protection, would not in itself be a cause for protecting a page. We almost never protect pages pre-emptively (there have, I think, been exceptions where a well-known media figure has specifically told viewers to vandalise specific pages, but that's highly unusual) so even if the media is filled with reports about a topic, we won't lock the article unless actual disruption is occuring.

• In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Full protection of a page would be used when there is persistent, long-term and repeated vandalism, content dispute and edit warring by registered users (and others). It could be temporary while the article's talk page is used to try to obtain a consensus on the way forward. It could be permanent where an article has a long history of disruption. The result of full protection is that only admins can edit the article.

Y Spot on.

• Correctly request the protection of one page (semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

Here is one I happened to come across this ongoing IP edit war when looking for vandalism.

Y Looks like that was a good call, and the page was indeed protected as a result.