User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Apollogetticax

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 User talk:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Apollogetticax.

Make sure you read through Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

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.
 * How to use this 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.

Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.
 * Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.

''Yes, I have enabled Twinkle the moment I became autoconfirmed. -- Apollogetticax''

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

Answer:

A good faith edit is one made to contribute to the encyclopedia. A vandalism edit (bad faith), is one made to disturb it, hinder its growth, and obstruct its purpose. Per WP:AGF, all edits are good faith until proven bad.

Bold edits, copyright violations, test edits, harassment, wrong style, the omission of an edit summary, lack of understanding of Wikipedia's purpose, NPOV violations, and removal of unencyclopedic material are not vandalism. (Removing encyclopedic material IS) Anything that appears to be bad faith, and does not fall into these categories, is likely vandalism.

In a nutshell: The difference between the two is user intent, and when judging edits, WP:Assume good faith.

It's also a good idea to check the user(or IP)'s other contributions, and look for obvious vandalism and other signs, if you can't discern exactly if it is.

Here's something that can happen: The user makes tons of vandalism edits, and when he gets his final warning, he makes a good edit to throw people off track, maybe takes a break from Wikipedia a bit, and then comes back and delivers his final blow. That's why anti-vandalism users should check the user's contributions, to see if the user is trying to trick them.

(Is this long enough?)


 * . The key here is "intention". If an editor intends to help Wikipedia, and the edit is considered disruptive, they are still considered a "good faith" editor especially the new editor does not aware their edits are disruptive. Vandalism is a "deliberate attempt" to harm Wikipedia. Editor might edit adds incorrect or unsourced information and this does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal; the key is their "intention". If we are not sure about their intention, then we can check their contribution log, talk page message (makes sure to check their talk page history log, as they might delete some of the messages on their talk page), to gauge their edits behavior and patterns. Cassiopeia   talk  09:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Answer 1:
 * 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 (reverts) in your edit history if you wish.
 * Vandalism
 * Vandalism

Silly vandalism (profanity) (Vandalism diff, User warning diff)Note: User's next edit is not vandalism, but ClueBot NG categorizes it as that, and an admin blocks the user less than a minute later.


 * ✅ Good. This is not silly vandalism but blantant vandalism. Cassiopeia  talk  09:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Answer 2:

Blatant vandalism (Vandalism diff, User warning)

Note: No diff available.


 * ✅ This is not blatant vandalism but silly vandalism. You have provided the hist diff above. Cassiopeia  talk  09:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, I meant for the warning. -- Apollogetticax

Answer 3:

Nonsense (Vandalism diff, User warning diff)

''Note: Only one of the multitude of cyclone-related articles vandalised by user. User stated, in an article, that he will keep vandalizing this kind of article. Vandalism like changing "Ulli" to "Ulililililili" and appending "CCCCCCRRRRRRAAASSSSHHHHHHHEDDDD" to the ends of templates.''


 * ✅. Cassiopeia  talk  09:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Answer:
 * Good faith

Answer 1:

Test edit (Edit diff,User warning)


 * ✅. Cassiopeia  talk  09:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Answer 2:

Test edit (Edit diff, User warning)


 * ✅ Good. Cassiopeia  talk  09:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Answer 3:

Incorrect wiki style (labeling sections as "chapters") (Edit diff, User warning)

Note: When I say "User warning diff", it may not be a warning but a notice (Warning templates level one and two)
 * ✅ Good. Cassiopeia  talk  09:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

-


 * Any questions regarding the assignment, please let me know here. For other questions not relating to the assignments, ping me on the talk page of this subpage here.
 * You need to provide reasons, hist diffs - see diffs for instructions, of the/your edit and communication/warnings messages of the involved editor talk page for your answers.
 * (IMPORTANT) - Do not revert more than 3 times within 24 hours on the same article unless the edits are absolutely considered blatant vandalism for you will be blocked from editing. If you are not sure about the edits (whether it is a vandalism or not), pls do nothing and let other more experienced/counter-vandalism editors take action.
 * Pls do not revert more than 3 times in 24 hours on the same page if the edits are not considered blatant vandalism for you will be blocked (important to note).
 * If you mistakenly give a warning to any editor wrongly, pls remove the warning and apologize. There is a assignment on communication with editors and we will discuss the topic on a later date.
 * Pls bookmark this page on your computer for easy searching
 * Pls note that the motto of CUVA is "Civility – Maturity – Responsibility." Welcome to CVUA. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia  talk  08:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, I wanted to let you know that I have finished the assignments you gave me, and that I would like for them to be graded, and for me to receive the new ones.  Apollo getticax  |<sup style="color:green"> talk  05:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Reviewed. Well-done.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  09:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * From this I can speculate that my problems are identifying the types of vandalism, like my mess-up between silly and blatant vandalism. -- Apollogetticax


 * I just reviewed good faith vs vandalism - pls see the comments.  Silly vandalism is less harmful to the subject. Any profanity, attack on subject's sex/gender, abrasive trolls are considered serious blatant/serious vandalism which  which is extremely offensive and harmful especially toward the WP:BLP. If you still have any questions  or  you are ready to move on to the next assignment, pls let me know.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>   talk  09:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am ready to move on, thanks for clarifying the difference between the two types. -- Apollogetticax

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
 * (1) Why do we warn users?


 * Answer:


 * (2) When would a 4im warning be appropriate?


 * Answer:


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


 * Answer:


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


 * Answer:


 * (5) Please give examples and please do the substitution (using ) of three different warnings with three different levels (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.


 * Answer i:


 * Answer ii:


 * Answer iii:

-

See assignment 2 above. (Note: sign off by placing ] by typing four tildes .<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  09:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)