User:Jackson Peebles/Adoption/Tattoodwaitress Exam 3

I'm going to try to keep this test short...that was a lot of reading you just did (or hopefully just did ). There is a practical aspect to this test, so if you don't have Twinkle turned on, I would recommend doing so now.

3 diffs asked for in lesson: 1. i had actually ran across this one last night while browsing the recent changes page but did not add it to the ones I already had there. 2. found today 3. 4.

I don't want to do the exam until I know that I got the idea, which is why I haven't done that yet. TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ  '' 21:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope I got it this time. The version on the left of the dif is the old one and the one on the right is the newer one (going by the date and times in the description above the versions.

1.) Q- In your own words, define vandalism.
 * A-Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to undermine the work that is done here on Wiki. Either the addition of useless information, cuss words, rude comments, and or the deletion/blanking of sections or pages.
 * 5/5 Very good definition. Nice work.

2.) Q- What are obvious indicators of a vandalism edit while watching recent changes?
 * A-Obvious indicators are replaced or blanked sections/pages spotted by the size of the decrease/increase in the page, & auto summaries can be an indicator as well.
 * 5/5 Excellent! While there's no positive indicator of vandalism, those are all great things to keep your eyes peeled for and that might merit attention.  Obviously, you know that these aren't grounds for reversion, but, rather, additional investigation.

3.) Q- What warning template would you use if a user removed or blanked all the content from a page?
 * A- 	[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm Tattoodwaitress. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!
 * 5/5 Yup. That's the one!

4.) What if I came to your talk page and called you a !@#$!#$!@#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!@#$!@#$!@#%#$^$%^#@$~#$@#$%!@#$!@#? Then what warning template would you use?
 * A- 	[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm Tattoodwaitress. I noticed that you made a comment  that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
 * 5/5 Again, you got it!

5.) What is WP:AIV and when should you use it?
 * A- It is Administrator intervention against vandalism page and is the place to go to report the vandal after you have exhausted all your options. The vandal must have been warned repeatedly and have been allowed enough time to stop the acts, be committing obvious acts of spam or vandalism, and be active on Wikipedia in the present time.
 * 4/5 Very good. My key addition would be that sometimes a user only deserves one warning if the offense(s) is/are particularly egregious.  Also, usernames do not get reported here (not that you said that they do), just as an aside.  Administrators have a lot of power and knowledge; you should check out WP:RFA sometime to see how difficult it is to become an administrator and the standards that they are held to.

6.) Find three instances of vandalism, revert them, warn the users appropriately, and post the diffs below (the diffs of the vandalism will suffice, I will go ensure that you warned them appropriately and don't need diffs to do so).
 * 
 * No. You should've assumed good faith on this one.


 * 
 * Yup! Textbook vandalism.  Good warning.


 * 
 * Good revert and good chosen template for the warning, I still wouldn't call it vandalism, though. You say in your definition of vandalism that it is a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia.  Neither the first one nor the third one seem like deliberate attempts to harm the encyclopedia.  Otherwise, just AGF or don't assume anything.  2/5


 * I understand you're waiting on this. My judgement of your knowledge is that you are ready to (carefully) approach this question.  Keep up the good work, good luck, and let me know if you need help!  Also, check out WP:IRC if you want guidance as you're going through this!

Once you have finished, please notify me on my talk page, then proceed to Lesson 4: Twinkle.


 * ✅ 26/30 - A solid score - just beware of the difference between vandalism and just dumb edits that still need to be reverted but one should assume good faith for. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)