User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Visioncurve

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/Visioncurve.

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.

Answer: My opinion regarding the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit is that a good faith edit is an edit which does not qualify as an act of vandalism, but still should be reverted because it does not meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. A good faith edit may be anything from an unreferenced addition to contributing a copyright picture to an article. In this case, we should assume that this kind of edit was made most probably by a newcomer, and by "assuming good faith", try our best to explain and resolve the problem while staying civil. Whereas vandalism is editing deliberately intended to cause damage to Wikipedia articles or templates. For instance: adding indecency, swear words or irrelevant humor to a page, unexplained removal or blanking page content or templates from Wikipedia, and adding nonsense into a page. Visioncurve Timendi causa est nescire  12:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.


 * . We could check the editor history log and talk page to see their editing pattern if their edit is in question (could be good faith but dont know the Wikipedia guidelines) but the important point here is the editor's "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  05:28, 9 July 2022 (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) 1 It is a content-based mistake usually made by newcomers, who don't want to hurt Wikipedia, but rather project it.
 * ✅. It is not about content-based but the editor intention was not to harm Wikipedia. Cassiopeia  talk  02:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

(2) 2 It's also a good faith edit, however, it's an addition of an unsourced material and is non-constructive due to the fact that it lacks sufficient punctuation.
 * ✅. unsourced is not considered vandaslism edit put continuing adding unsourced info after received warnings might subject from blocking edit Wikipedia. Cassiopeia  talk  02:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

(3) 3 This is a tricky one, but I assumed good faith myself and thought that the editor tried to correct or update relevant information. I reverted it on the grounds that he failed to adequately explain why he changed a sourced info without citing his own source.
 * ✅. Adding unsourced content is not considered vandalism but continuing adding many unsourced content after receiving warnings would subject to be reported to AIV and could be blocked from editing. If you check the 2 existing sources not Rich Cho nor Mitch Kupchak was mentioned in the sources. Cassiopeia  talk  03:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Answer:
 * Vandalism

(1) 1 This one is easy. It's crystal clear that the editor tried to hurt Wikipedia by vandalizing the biography of a living person.
 * ✅. Cassiopeia  talk  03:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

(2) 2 It is a bad faith edit, so it is vandalism and I took the appropriate steps to remove it.
 * ✅. Cassiopeia  talk  03:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

(3) 3 An attempt to deliberately harm Wikipedia, surely can be classified as vandalism.
 * ✅. Cassiopeia  talk  03:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

- Good day. 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. Pls provide (1) hist diff of edits the article and talk pages (2) link to guidelines, (3) reasons/explanation where it is necessary for all the assignment for this program. Ping me when you have finish the assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia  talk  12:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * , thanks for starting this course. Assignment completed! Visioncurve  Timendi causa est nescire  12:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * , pls read the initially message (message above) especial on # 3 and provide the info on the 6 unmarked questions and ping me once you have finished them.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  05:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * , hey, how are you? Sorry to have responded this late, I had some important things to do in life. I have completed the previous assignment in full and hope that you will kindly review it as soon as possible. Thank you and take care! Visioncurve  Timendi causa est nescire  10:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * , See comments above and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  03:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * , thanks for your comments and explanations, they were really helpful. As of now, I don't have any questions with regard to my previous assignment, so I feel ready to move to the next one. Thanks! Visioncurve  Timendi causa est nescire  05:52, 11 August 2022 (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:
 * To let them know that their edits are not in line with Wikipedia principles or are disruptive and that these edits have been reverted. We also warn users to inform them that repeating similar actions may have consequences. Warning is also issued to create a sort of paper trail for admins who are considering a block request.
 * . The purpose is to "educate" the editors on constructive editing, especially those who are new to Wikipedia and to "deter" them of such actions with stronger warnings leads up to a block.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>   talk  03:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


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


 * Answer:
 * It is the only warning given to users who are engaged in a clear and excessive vandalism. This warning is used primarily in the case of unacceptable or continuous disruption.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  03:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


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


 * Answer:
 * We should always substitute talk page templates - Twinkle and Redwarn do this automatically. These days, it's not very important, as the gadgets do it for us, but it's good to know nonetheless.
 * . hould be used always so that the message on the users talk page does not change even if the template you used were to be altered at a later date. This is done by adding instead of just the template name.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>   talk  03:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * (4) What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * Answer:
 * I'll have him reported to WP:AIV.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  03:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * (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.

1. The user had been warned once by a corresponding bot, but apparently, he failed to follow its instructions published at his talk page. I had to issue him a level 2 warning regarding his disruptive editing.
 * Answer i:

2 It was a bad faith edit, but should not be qualified as vandalism. Still, placed a level 1 warning (disruptive editing) on the user's talk page that was deleted for a certain reason.
 * Answer ii:

3 The user has been warned three times for disruptive editing within a month, however, he continued his bad faith editing which can even be qualified as vandalism. Therefore, I decided to issue him a level 3 warning.
 * Answer iii:

-

See assignment 2 above. For question 5 - use (example)  subs three different templates (different warning and different level of warning}} see example below.

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.

Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  06:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * , hi there. How are you? Just wanted to let you know that I finished my latest assignment. All the best! Visioncurve  Timendi causa est nescire  13:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Pls read the question 5 and see the example given on the communication section above. Rework on answers and ping me when you have finished.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  03:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)