User:Illusion Flame/CVUA/Shadestar474

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 red - 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:

Twinkle
Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.


 * I enabled Twinkle. Shadestar474   (talk)  23:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 03:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. Within a few hours of activating it, I’ve already accidentally pressed the rollback button on a both good faith and constructive edit! (Don’t worry, I reverted it seconds after) Now I know what that button does…whoops.

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.


 * Good faith edits are edits made by people who are trying to help the encyclopedia, even if their edits may seem unconstructive. They are not always made by newcomers, although they often are (because newcomers might not understand the rules and etiquette of Wikipedia yet). Sometimes they are made by the most experienced of editors, like boldly editing, which is not vandalism, and is instead encouraged in most situations. They should not be treated like vandalism, and instead we should gently push new users to learn about the policies they may have inadvertently violated, for example, the policy to not use articles as test edit spaces. I would tell them apart by asking the user that made them about it, and if it is a topic I am not well-versed in, I would do some research to prevent this from happening again. Shadestar474   (talk)  23:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I agree. Often it can be tricky when trying to determine if a user is a simple vandal/long term abuser or a good faith user trying to help. It’s always best to discuss with the user when unsure. If they respond with something like “I didn’t know. Thank you.” You can likely AGF. If they respond with “go away”, you can probably assume bad faith. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 03:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Shadestar474  (talk)  23:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like a bold edit, but is unexplained and does not appear constructive.
 * ✅, could be. I’d investigate more before making a final verdict. It’s also important to look at a users other contributions when making this decision. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 03:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, is unexplained removal.
 * Yep. ✅ - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 03:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They probably are very rooted in what they think, and were not trying to harm Wikipedia, but wanted to share what they think everyone else should think with the world. Appears to be vandalism on the surface, but is probably good, if ill-guided, faith.
 * . The user appears to be an anti-Wikipedia user. (An editor whose edits express a distain towards Wikipedia). Whether their intent was to assist readers or promote Wikipedia hate is up for speculation. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 03:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Shadestar474  (talk)  23:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Enstooled is just a funny way of saying installed. I don’t think this could’ve been a good faith edit, but I was just going with my gut for this. It was before I knew you have to use logic and careful consideration.
 * ❌ I disagree. Enstooled is another term for enthronement, not a funny way of saying installed. If you’re ever not sure about reverting. Don’t revert. We want quality reverts, not necessarily a lot of them. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 03:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems very opinionated, and looks like they were trying to get attention, as is mentioned in the motivation of a vandal.
 * ✅ Now blocked for vandalism. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 03:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like just random nonsense put there to disrupt.
 * ✅ I agree. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 03:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Note: I am probably being terrible at assuming good faith here, I don’t have tons of practice at that, but I think this is the practice, so I will try as best I can.
 * No problem. If you already knew all of this stuff, you wouldn’t need to take the course! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 04:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I’d like to see just a little more work in good faith v.s vandalism detection.


 * 1
 * It looks like they were putting genuine information on there, just they didn’t know it has to be sourced and they also didn’t know how to spell or use grammar.
 * 2
 * Looks like blanking.
 * 3 (Note WP:LISTPEOPLE)
 * I can’t understand this diff bc it’s in a different format than the one I’m used to for some reason.

I’m sufficiently satisfied. pt. #1 - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 04:15, 16 November 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.


 * To make sure they know the policies they are violating, so that if they didn’t know, now they do. And also to give them time before they are blocked (if they continue down this path) to change their path.
 * ✅ - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * If the actions taken by the user being given the warning are so drastic that they warrant such an immediate blocking.
 * I think you’re on the right track here. ✅ - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, because if the warning template changes in the future, the record of what you put on there will change, and the meaning of it might as well. As to how, you just do it like this: template
 * Yep. ✅ - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Report them to ANI
 * ❌ Nope. When you’re free, re-read WP:VANDALISM and respond back with a new answer! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Report them to AIV?
 * ✅. Yep! Twinkle can help with this too. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Should be used for instances of subtle vandalism, for example, knowingly inserting false information into an article that is plausible enough that most readers could see it and say, ‘Oh, that seems legit.’
 * ✅ - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Should be used for instances of disruptive, but not vandalism, editing, for example, trying to promote oneself.
 * ✅, but promotional edits have their own template, uw-advert1. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Should be used for instances of blanking, for example, deleting the contents of a whole page or only some of the page.
 * ✅ - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

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. The following templates are used for test edits:, and.

I am going to be busy tomorrow, I will do all of the vandalism reverts below the day after tomorrow. Thanks for understanding, Shadestar474   (talk)  05:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course. This course is entirely at your own pace! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, a question, do I have to revert the vandalism to put it on this table? Because, when I’m recent changes patrolling, all the vandalism gets reverted by other people within seconds of it happening, so I can’t get to the vandalism in time to revert it.
 * This has been a problem for other students too. Users with more advanced tools, like Hugggle, often beat newer vandal fighters to vandalism. How about this: At least 5 need to be your reverts, the rest can be others, but you must explain if you think the revert was good or bad. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you! And it says to revert vandalism, but can they be reverts of unconstructive, but good faith, edits? I just reverted one of those and am wondering if I can put it into the table.
 * I guess that’s fine. Try to do as many of your own reverts as you can, and less of others than. Please also remember to warn users. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, I reverted some blatant vandalism and used a 4im template, I was wondering if the edit constituted that. I was confident it did, but that was my first time, so I just wanted to check with a more experienced editor. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Mast&diff=prev&oldid=1202184356 Shadestar474   (talk)  06:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Reported to AIV for the first time! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1202440770 I would’ve put it in the table, but it was full. Shadestar474  (talk)  19:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)