User:Jim Carter/CVUA/TheGreatWikiLord

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 my talk page.

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.

 How to use this page

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.

Note: 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.

Good faith and vandalism
Note: 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 recognize the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labeling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.

 Task no. 1  Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
 * A: Main difference between the two is intent. When in doubt assume good faith. If the edit is in the intent to help expand WP but does not accomplish it's goal than it is in good faith. If it is clear that intent is to disrupt WP than it is vandalism. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You're on the right track,, but remember, it is hard to determine the intent. So always check through their other contributions to see if there are repetitions; looking at their conduct towards other editors are also helpful in determining the intent. You should always AGF unless there's proof that it is blatantly vandalism (such as repetition, etc.).  Jim Car ter  11:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

 Task no. 2  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.


 * A: Good faith:


 * 1)    : ✅
 * 2)   : ✅ Note: This type of edits may or may not be done in good faith. If the user continues to make such edits in multiple articles then it can be assumed vandalism. Look at the edit carefully, can you deduce what the user actually have been trying to do? They just added "k" in the section header "External links". What could a new comer try to do in that section? They may have added a link, but in this case they have changed a spelling. The editor has not made any other edits to any other articles. Can you now deduce what is the most probable type of unhelpful edit is this? This is called test edit. Users sometimes edit pages as an experiment. Such edits, while prohibited, are treated differently from vandalism, we AGF. These users should be warned using the uw-test series of user warning templates, or by a talk page message including, if appropriate, a welcome and referral to the Wikipedia sandbox, where they can continue to make test edits without being unintentionally disruptive. Registered users can also create their own sandboxes as a user subpage. If a user has made a test edit and then reverted it, consider placing the message uw-selfrevert, on their talk page. Editing tests are only considered vandalism when a user continues to make test edits despite receiving numerous warnings.  Jim Car ter  11:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  :  ✅


 * A: Vandalism:


 * 1)  :  ✅
 * 2)  :   Note: The removal of the content from the page, Jeff was legitimate. We don't have an article on Jeff Ausnow, by a rule of thumb, subjects which don't have their articles are not generally added to such Disambiguation pages without a supporting source. Here since there is no article on the subject (WP:BLP) nor a source was present, the removal was not vandalism. Read this.  Jim  Car  ter  12:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  :  ✅

 Task no. 3  An IP user has removed some unsourced information from an article about a living person without providing an edit summary. Will you revert the edit or will you not? Give reason why you think the edit should/should not be reverted. Is there anything you can do other than reverting/not reverting?


 * A: Best thing to do is to find a source. If it was just one or two sentences from a long article, I am less likely to revert that, if it is anything longer than than I am likely to give it a closer look and the history of the IP's contributions before making a decision. Again, If I can find a source, I will revert and add a source. Unfortunately, I don;t think there is a simple answer to this one.

, note that the IP is removing unsourced materials from a living person's biography. Your remark of "finding a source" is correct but if you couldn't find any, you should not revert the edit unless the ip is totally blanking the page etc. It is a legitimate edit as any unsourced contentious material about a BLP can be challenged and removed. However, you should instead go to the IP's talk page and advice them to provide edit summaries of their future edits alongside a welcome note.  Jim Car  ter  13:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

 Task no. 4  I'm listing four diffs below. You'll tell me whether they are vandalism or Good faith.


 * 1   :    A: AGF: ✅


 * 2   :     A: AGF: ✅


 * 3    :     A: Vandalism ✅


 * 4   :    A: AGF ✅

So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Warning and reporting
Note: 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. Please read WP:WARN and WP:UWUL before answering the following questions.

 Task no. 5  Why do we warn users?
 * A: To inform then they have made an error and allow them to make amends. Warning also serves to make sure that it was not done in good faith or by mistake.

 Task no. 6  When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
 * A: When it it obvious that edits were made in bad faith and are seriously disruptive.

 Task no. 7  Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?
 * A: Yes, you can just let Twinkle do it for you.

 Task no. 8  What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalizes again?
 * A: Report them to WP:AIV for blocking.

So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

?So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)