User:Jethro B/CVUA

Hello,

Congratulations on enrolling in the CVUA! This is a subpage of mine to help organize all content related to your studies at the CVUA. Feel free to keep a copy of this page when you graduate.

As you progress through the CVUA, this page will grow and fill out some more.

By your graduation, you will:
 * Understand how to identify vandalism.
 * Understand the difference between vandalism, test edits, and good-faith edits.
 * Understand how to use STiki to revert vandalism.
 * Understand how to use Twinkle.
 * Understand how to use the rollback option to revert vandalism, and userscripts that go along with it.

Credit - while I built this page on my own, some of the content or ideas are taken from Riley Huntley's CVUA subpage, who served as my instructor.

Let the games begin!
Hey NitRav!

I'll be your instructor at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy.

I will help train you in using two tools, among training you at identifying vandalism.

As the WP:TWINKLE page explains, "It provides users with three types of rollback functions and includes a full library of speedy deletion functions, user warnings and welcomes, maintenance tags, semi-automatic reporting of vandals, and much, much more." All of these options are now on the top of your Wikipedia page when you click on a new icon labelled "TW." The options are abbreviated, but hovering over them lets you see what they stand for.

So let's say you want to request deletion of a page and open an XFD. Simply click "TW" and then "XFD." Let's say you want to warn an editor about unconstructive edits. Simply click "TW" and then "Warn," and select the warning level that you wish to use. Information on warning levels should be read here. -- Activism  1234  16:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What's vandalism?
You're almost ready for your first task! But before you go out using Twinkle and reverting vandalism, I need to make sure you understand what vandalism is!

First, please make sure to read WP:AGF, WP:VANDALISM, and WP:NOT VANDALISM if you haven't already to understand what vandalism really is.

Now, answer the following question. I'm not looking for an essay! Answer it with as many sentences you need - it can be short or long, just as long as it answers the question.

'''What is the difference between vandalism and a good faith edit? How would you tell them apart?'''


 * It's always difficult to differentiate between a good faith edit and vandalism, with exclusion of complete nonsense and obvious acts of vandalism.

The primary difference between AGF edit and a VAN edit is the motive behind them. AGF edits are done with an intent to improve the Wikipedia, whereas a VAN edit is done intentionally to disrupt and compromise the functioning of Wikipedia. -- NitRav (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Per the rule of thumb on Wikipedia, AGF on all edits, with exclusion of the obvious VAN edits.

Primarily I would check the edit made, to check if it is a AGF or a VAN edit, and also would depend on the auto summary to look for possible acts of vandalism. And when in doubt would check the WP:VANDTYPESand WP:NOTVAND to determine. -- NitRav (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - correct! Just to add, on edits that make just a bit of a change, it's better to lean more towards a good-faith edit (except in obvious cases of vandalism, such as changing the name of a person to an insult). A user who removes a sentence from an article without an explanation may simply be unaware of the rules, rather than intending to vandalize the article.  Removing entire sections though is different. -- Jethro   B  22:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You are now ready to move on to the tasks below. Good luck! -- Jethro  B  22:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

First Task
After I review your answer to check that it's correct, proceed to the following tasks.

'''Identify 3 examples of vandalism on Wikipedia. Post the diffs here, and explain why it's vandalism. You do not need to revert the edit, and you can use previous examples in your edit history or mine, as long as you can explain why it's not vandalism.'''

✅ - Nice job with 1 and 3. Those are definitely vandalism. #2 is a bit shady though. The editor's intentions aren't about vandalizing a Wikipedia article or harassing it. It's a radical fan of this band, unaware of what neutrality means on Wikipedia and the need to reference stuff. I'd classify it as a good-faith edit, while still reverting.
 * 1) IP Edit, One of my previous reverts as it's obvious![]
 * 2) IP Edit, Reverted by ClueNG Bot, I would have manually reverted this one though, and left the IP a level 1 warning.[]
 * 3) IP Edit, Another one of my previous reverts, again this one is obvious.[]

It should be noted though, that IF this was being repeatedly carried out, even after multiple reverts, it'd constitute vandalism. It may also constitute vandalism if the IP has a long history of warnings and notices on Wikipedia, as it'd show this is their behavior and they clearly don't want to build an encyclopedia.

Since you may have been confused because Clubot did in fact revert it (Cluebot works on algorithims and logic, part of that is seeing an IP edit make an unreferenced edit), and because of your recent revert on the article in a different scenario of clear vandalism, I'll let this one slide, since it is evident you now know what vandalism really is about. -- Jethro  B  00:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

'''Identify 3 examples of good faith edits on Wikipedia. Post the diffs here, and explain why it's vandalism. You do not need to revert the edit, and you can use previous examples in your edit history or mine, as long as you can explain why it's not vandalism.'''


 * 1) IP Edit,1st edit from the IP, Unfamilar with editing[]
 * 2) IP Edit, 1st edit from the IP, again guess is Unfamilar with editing[]
 * 3) IP Edit, 1st edit from the IP, seems unfamilar with editing[]

✅ A few comments though: -- Jethro  B  00:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) In the first diff above, it seems like a test edit, or an edit that's performed by someone who says, "Ooh, anyone can edit Wikipedia! Let me click this button and try this out." No malicious intention though.  This case wasn't probably intentional malicious section blanking, as you can see by the fact they put in some words, so it seems like they were trying to write something and got cut off or are just unfamiliar with the rules.  If, however, only section blanking occured, it would probably be vandalism, although always best to simply tell the editor and warn them first regarding editing and rules, if the editor has never edited before.
 * 2) In the second diff, that's a good judgement call. It's better to lean towards good-faith edit, as the infobox wasn't removed completely, but only a few lines.  Plus that was the IP's first edit.
 * 3) The third diff represents a different type of good-faith edit: writing unreferenced, even if factual, edits or essays or opinions with a good intention.

I will post the next assignment within a few minutes. -- Jethro  B  00:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, learning more about Counter Vandalism -- NitRav (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Warnings
As you know by now, after unconstructive editing or vandalism occurs, the editor who performed the action should be given a warning. But what warnings should be given? There are different levels of warnings, which can be easily accessed at Twinkle. In the Twinkle box/screen, simply select the dropdown box that contains a list of levels for warnings on the top, and if necessary, select the second dropdown box that contains a list of actions that the warning is for.

Read about the level warnings and when to use them here.

For example, say you want to warn an editor who made his 1st edit and it is completely unreferenced. We know this isn't vandalism. We go to the top of our page, click TW, click Warn to open the Twinkle box. In the first dropbox, we leave "general note (1)" as it is - a level 1 warning. In the second dropbox, we don't want the warning to be for vandalism! So we click it, and look down until we find "addition of unsourced or improperly cited material" and select that. Then you may optionally link the article to which the edit occured on (for example, "Judas Priest") and give an optional message.

Also, we generally increment the level of warnings based on the edits of the user. A first edit by an editor that isn't good would generally get a level 1 warning, or a level 2 sometimes. A second similar edit that ignores the warning would get a level 3 warning. Then a level 4. Then the editor would be reported to the admins.

Just to make sure you fully understand what the different level warnings are for before you head out into the field out again, please answer the following questions: '''When would you assign a:


 * Level 2 warning (caution)


 * Level 3 warning (warning)

-- Jethro  B  00:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Level 4im warning (Only warning)


 * Level 2 warning (caution) - This[] for me would be a Level 2 warning, though it's a first edit for the user, I could be wrong though!.


 * Level 3 warning (warning) - For an edit like this one ,[]I'd use a Level 3 waring, as there are multiple instances of vandalism by this IP, Followed by a Level 4 warning.

-- NitRav (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Level 4im warning (Only warning) - This edit [] walks away with the honors for the Level 4im warning!


 * - This is a bit of a grey area. Normally, for edits like these, I'd give a level 1 warning.  Probably some foreign editor, didn't realize the English Wikipedia must be edited in English.  Then again, I know some Spanish, and his edit was regarding sexual services, unrelated to the article itself, and seems to have been intended as a prank.  So a level 2 warning may be appropriate.  Personally though, I'd go with Level 1 - there's no harm done.  If the editor repeats it, then it's just one more bad action they've done, one more warning, and one more edit reverted.
 * Definitely appropriate. The editor has been here a long time and hasn't made anything constructive. If they repeat this action again in a short amount of time, it'd be legitimate for you to report them to administrators.
 * Yes, it does. But understand why that edit deserves it.  That edit could very well be some kid in school trying to get his name on Wikipedia.  Normally, not level 4im.  BUT the same editor has been previously warned in October in increasing levels, and has ignored this, which would warrant such a warning.

I will post the next assignment soon. -- Jethro  B  23:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Reporting editors for vandalism
Congratulations! You're almost done with learning about vandalism. We just have this last section, then we'll move on to tools like STiki which are great for fighting vandalism.

Check out WP:AIV. This is an administrator noticeboard, where you can report editors for vandalism. Remember, this is for vandalism only. As the page says: 1.The edits of the reported user must be obvious vandalism or obvious spam. 2.The user must have been given enough warnings to stop their disruptive behavior. 3.The warnings must have been given recently, especially for unregistered users. 4.Requests for further sanctions against a blocked user (e.g., talk page, e-mail blocks) should go to WP:AN/WP:ANI, as a bot automatically removes accounts here that are blocked.

To report an editor who falls under this, simply go to that editors user/talk page, click TW on the top, and click "ARV." Just fill out the short form that appears (let me know if you have any questions about it), and done! Twinkle will automatically file a report for you at AIV.

'''Task: Report 2 editors to AIV (supply a diff with the report). The two editors must also have gotten blocked as a result - I will check their page to see if they are blocked.'''

-- Jethro  B  23:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * First Successfull Block[] -- NitRav
 * ✅ - Great job! Just 1 more to go! -- Jethro  B  23:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks JethroB, here is the 2nd one []
 * ✅! On the side, remember to sign your posts with a signature!

We will begin the next phase of fighting vandalism soon. Congratulations NitRav! You have been able to successfully identify and fight vandalism, and now we will learn awesome tools that make it so much easier, other than Twinkle. Then, if you've displayed enough knowledgem, which I'm sure you will have, you will be able to graduate! -- Jethro  B  23:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks JethroB, And yeah! I need to remember to add a sign always! ;) NitRav (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)