User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Khrincan

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/Skipple.

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.
 * Read through Wikipedia:Vandalism, bookmarked, looks like this will need to be re-read a few times and continuously referred back to. Also read Diffs. Joseywales1961 (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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 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.

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 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 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: The difference between a good faith and a vandalism edit is that vandalism intentionally disrupts the encyclopedic nature and behavior of Wikipedia. Good faith edits are made with the editor not purposefully trying to damage it, even if it does. One way I can tell them apart is by looking if they have an edit summary. A good faith edit would usually have an edit summary that explains what they did in their revision, like citing a policy. A vandalism edit summary may mislead people by saying, 'fixed typo(s)' or 'added information' that doesn't contribute to the article constructively. If the summary is honest, shown through the diff, it is a good-faith edit. If the summary is misleading or offensive and the edit is in-constructive, it may be considered vandalism.
 * ✅. 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". Cassiopeia  talk  19:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * 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 in your edit history if you wish.
 * Good faith

Answer:(1) Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Balrampur_floods&curid=72353281&diff=1134319689&oldid=1134319389 The edit was made in good faith because it only adds relevant information to the article without changing anything else. However, the edit was unhelpful because it does not meet WP:Verify since the added text does not provide a reliable source. Specifically, the revision named some districts affected by the flood but doesn't cite a reference to support the statement.


 * ✅. Cassiopeia  talk  19:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

(2) Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Touching_(Paul_Bley_album)&curid=43093536&diff=1134608619&oldid=1134608305

In this example, it looks like the editor did a test edit to add images to the article. However, since the photos aren't related to the subject, it's considered disruptive. But since it was their second edit, they are probably not aware of the sandbox feature, so this edit did not purposefully mean to disrupt Wikipedia (see WP:Test edits).


 * . A test edit is an edit that the editor "trying to edit Wikipedia article to see if the can actually perform the edit". Examples such as remove/add a character, number, word, add words such as "hello / hi / test" and sometimes the editor would revert they own edit (first edit) to restore the original content and we call this "self-revert test edit". In your example above, the editor trying to add certain image but also removed the source, we could consider is as disruptive or vandalism.  Cassiopeia  talk  19:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

(3) Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solomon_Bibo&curid=15225545&diff=1133633021&oldid=1054647152

This edit adds information about a family member to the article but does not pass WP:V since there's no reliable source to back up the text. The problem may be because the edit summary shows a conflict of interest (saying that they're a relative of the particular family member), which can cause verifiability or orginal reserch problems. But this doesn't prove they're vandalizing, and we can assume good faith in this edit.


 * ✅. We also could place COI warning template in the editor talk page (assignment 3) Cassiopeia  talk  19:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Answer:
 * Vandalism

(1) Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Carolina&diff=prev&oldid=1127868398

For this example, the edit summary says, "accuracy," but in reality, the diffs show insulting claims and commentary about the subject, which seriously violates WP:NPOV (the revision in question called the subject, "the worst” and “ full of re****s," among other things.) The edit doesn't look good faith from its misleading summary and diff.
 * ✅. Good. Cassiopeia  talk  19:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

(2) Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wai_Ching_Ho&diff=prev&oldid=1133436373

(Showing that the edits were made by an IP hopper:)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wai_Ching_Ho&diff=1133439005&oldid=1133438982
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wai_Ching_Ho&diff=1133438686&oldid=1133438290
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wai_Ching_Ho&diff=1133437390&oldid=1133437353

An IP hopper vandalized this article (shown through the hist) before it got semi-protected. The edit(s) aren't in good faith, as they violated WP:NPOV in the diff and was made by someone using multiple IPs even after multiple blocks and warnings on previous IPs, which results in WP:EVASION. The edits made a negative statement about a movie the subject was involved in.


 * ✅. Well-done. Cassiopeia  talk  19:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

(3) Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hutaree&curid=26742198&diff=1134550522&oldid=1133220626

This edit blanked the entire page and pasted unconstructive sentences for no good reason- the edit summary was also misleading, saying, “fixing lies,” which falls into the illegitimate blanking type of vandalism (see WP:VANDTYPES).
 * ✅. Cassiopeia  talk  19:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

- Good day. Good day.
 * 1) Any question regrading 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.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) (important) - do not revert more than 3 times within 24 hours on the same article unless the edits are absolutely considered blatant vandalisms 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 experience/counter vandalism editors to take action.
 * 4) pls note that the motto of CUVA is "Civility – Maturity – Responsibility." Welcome to CUVA. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia   talk  03:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey @Cassiopeia, I have a question about this assignment. For providing the three examples of good faith and vandalism edits, do I need different reasons why they're not helpful? Like on good faith edit examples, can I put in two/three edits having info that's not supported by a reliable source? Khrincan  ( talk ) 02:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes you need to provide reasons, hist diffs, and link of the guidelines where it is applicable for all the questions of all the assingments.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  02:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Once you have provided the reasons for your answers then ping me, so I could review them.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  08:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello . I’ve provided examples with diffs and reasons why they’re good faith/vandalism: can you please check them? Khrincan  ( talk ) 18:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * See review above. Pls let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assingment. Btw all communication regarding this assignment should be in the "communication section" below the assignment of this page. For all other questions you can either use the talk page of this program to write to me or send the message to my talk page. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  19:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for checking my answers. I read the review you gave me, especially the one about the test edit: I now know better about test edits to see if it's disruptive or vandalizing. I think I'm ready for the next assignment. Khrincan  ( talk ) 22:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

---

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: The reason why we warn users is to notify them that their edits are disruptive to Wikipedia. For good faith editors, it serves as a reminder to follow guidelines and policies to make constructive edits. For bad-faith editors and vandals, warnings discourage them from continuing their disruptive behavior, as there will be consequences such as blocking.


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


 * Answer: From WP:UWLEVELS, a 4im warning would be appropriate if the editor engages in "gross, extreme, or numerous vandalism." Some examples include vandalizing multiple pages in a short time and adding content that qualifies for RevDel under RD2 and RD3 criteria.


 * (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:According to WP:UWLEVELS, if a user receives a level 4 or 4im warning and decides to vandalize after that, they should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, where an administrator will treat the user accordingly.


 * (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. 01:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)