User talk:Akifumii/CVUA

This where your find new assignments and the such so that you don't clog up your user talk page. Whenever you get a asment done just put {{Talkback|User talk:Akifumii/CVUA|ts=-~~~~} } on my talk page so I can check your work. Have fun.

What is Vandalism

The most important thing about anti-Vandal work is figuring out what edits good faith edit and which are vandalism. good faith edits are done with the intent to help however aren't helpful. Vandalism are edits that are done just to destroy and have forthogh of malice. 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 and complete the following tasks.

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

A good faith edit is an edit that was made out of "good faith" but doesn't quite meet the policies and culture of Wikipedia nor does is it considered vandalism. These edits aren't usually harmful and can be resolved with a reminder on the users talk page.

A bad faith edit is an edit that is not constructive and is intended to harm the Wikipedia community and its articles. Name calling, arguing, spamming, etc. is not allowed on Wikipedia and can be considered vandalism.

Telling them apart is easy and simple. Anything that was meant to be constructive but there are slight mistakes is a good faith edit. These usually come from new editors who don't understand Wikipedia culture or how editing works here. Vandalism is blanking articles, adding nonsense, adding crude humor, etc. Anything you feel that is vandalism should be reported/undone out of good faith.

Akifumii^Talk 06:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 reverts in your edit history if you wish.

Good faith but not productive

here. here. Akifumii^Talk

Vandalism

here. here. here.Akifumii ^Talk 06:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akifumii I must say you are doing a good job However I Don't think that your examples of good faith edit are Good faith edits. A good faith edit is an edit that looks like it trying to help however doesn't follow guideline or tone of the article well vandalism is pointless or silly. Lines such as "Sexiest man alive" or "Kendrick cut himself every night before he went to sleep because he thought he had a small banana and was very self conscious and made steve self conscious about his melons" just seem like destructive randomness not helpful edits. A good faith edit would be something like this this. This edit tries to add info and doesn't look like its done with forethought of malice however the edit does not improve the article much does it? Another good example would be my first edit. I was trying to add useful information however it was misspelled unsourced and didn't fit the tone of the article. So in a nutshell Good faith edits try to help vandalism try to destroy. So if you could please just add one or 2 more examples of good faith edits to your list that would be marvelous.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti vandal tools

Now you could do anti vandal work the boring way by refreshing the recent changes page however that is slow and quite tedious. If you feel like it you can try out these anti vandal tools. if you can't get them to work don't worry about it just as long as you got some anti-vandal tools in your arsonal.

Twinkle

This is a tool that I highly recommend that you get.(If you haven't already.) It is very easy to install and It provides users with three types of rollback functions and includes a full library of speedy deletion functions, user warnings and welcomes, maintenance tags, semi-automatic reporting of vandals. When I first found it the number of vandalism I reverted nearly tripled.

Already done I usually use the twinkle rollback tool. Akifumii^Talk 22:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

This is another useful tool that you can use It can be a bit tricky to get to work at first (Especially If you don't use Windows) However the rewards are great. Huggle allows for quite speedy reverts of vandalism and is the backbone of wikipedias anti-vandal front. I would recommend it if you like quick and speedy reverts of vandalism.

Not done I currently don't have rollback rights. Akifumii^Talk 22:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STiki

This is useful for getting vandalism that got past the radar. It takes some installation however its worth it. With this tool I've got vandalism that was on a page for over 3 months.

Not done I currently don't have rollback rights. Akifumii^Talk 22:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lupin/Anti-vandal tool

This anti-vandal tool can be described like an old truck not the most shiny or fast tool out there however it chugs along blowing vandalism out of its way. Call me crazy but I used it for over an year and whenever I can't get one of the newer tools to work ill fall back to using this tool because it is so reliable.

Already done This tool does it all for me. I absolutely love it! Akifumii^Talk 22:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Good job with getting twinkle and Identifying Good faith edit Vr vandalism. Got another assignment here that I think that you can get over quickly.

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?

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?

If a user has vandalized twice but has not received any warnings for it, what would you do?

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

Please give examples (using {{Tlsubst|''name of template''}}) of three different warnings (not different levels of the same warning), 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. Use the edit test warning from twinkle to warn users who have performed edit tests.

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	diff	comment
2	diff	comment
3	diff	comment
4	diff	comment
5	diff	comment
6	diff	comment
7	diff	comment
8	diff	comment
9	diff	comment
10	diff	comment

I know that this is a bit of a tall order however it should be the only really large assignment here. Just a note for the past few days my internets been flaky at best so I'll be quite on off however I should be on #wikipedia-en from 16:00-17:00 UTC today good luck and happy editing!--Jeffrd10 (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]