User:Kharkiv07/CVUA/MarkYabloko

Hello! Welcome to your counter-vandalism academy page. Please add this page to your watchlist, as I'll be posting assignments and marking you here. Please feel free to leave any questions/comments/concerns at my talk page!

Before you begin, please read WP:Vandalism, it contains information essential to your training.

Training program adapted from 

=Good faith=

Thank you Kharkiv07  ( T ) for the opportunity to do my own small research on Good Faith.

How do you tell the difference between good-faith edits and vandalism?

Indeed, sometimes telling the difference between good-faith edits and vandalism can be tricky, because while edit-changes are easily noticed looking at articles' history, vandal-changes might not be that easy to spot, and the reason for that, is that there are many different types of vandalism WP:VANDTYPES https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism.

For example, Blanking articles is an obvious "vandal"-change (except when an author blanks own new article to submit it for deletion). Sneaky vandalism is where vandals make couple bad changes and then revert only one.

Wikipedia's stand on the issue, and mine too, is to ALWAYS assume good faith. Wikipedia is democratic in nature, and all the great things in it are thanks to the collective work of so many, and hence, in no way we should make new users or users who made mistakes feel unwelcome or needlessly alarm them. However, that same democratic nature invites vandals who seem to take a hobby in destroying other peoples' hard work.

Telling the difference, therefore, is more to than meets the eye. For example, "obvious" vandalism as in Page blanking, Page lengthening, Avoidant vandalism or Abuse of tags can simply be caused by type & paste errors, or even children learning how to use Wikipedia. So we can not be too quick in reprimanding them. We have to look at their contributions to spot patterns, repeated offences and ignored past warnings. If no past problems were found, then revering unintended good-faith edit might suffice. It might be helpful to send the user a welcome note (for new users) or kindly notice pointing to their unintended actions, along with adding them to watch lists.

Silly vandalism, especially with profanity, Hidden vandalism or Spam external linking are much harder to attribute on innocent mistakes, but nevertheless, while they require quick reverting, we still have to assume good-faith edits first, and only after building a case (repeated patterns of abuse and offenses, multiple ignored warnings) we can proceed with escalating the 4 levels warnings and reporting to administrators. Tools such WP:AUTOSUMM and Abuse Log are quite helpful.

I find Sneaky vandalism (where multiple bad edits were made and some are reverted) to be especially destructive, because there are no easy tools for regular users, they have to manually edit the differences, or undo one edit at a time, and risk being accused of vandalism themselves! Hence, Rollback is great tool!

One of the biggest challenges are the vandalisms coming from anonymous accounts in general, but even more so, are the ones with dynamic or proxy ip addresses where a single ip is shared between many users.

In summary:

Telling the difference between good-faith edit and vandalism is NOT easy! Being civil and assuming good faith is a mainstay on Wikipedia. A) ALWAYS assume good-faith. B) Trust but verify, for history of repeated patterns of abuse, previous warnings and blocks, and report if needed. C) If in doubt, remember you are NOT the only one who is tasked with saving Wikipedia! There are many others with great experience.

Examples of good-faith and vandalism edits: (Pointed in bold accordingly)

Here is an example of anonymous user 119.94.164.114 editing article on Calvin Abueva. Height increased by 1 inch and weight by 12 pounds (small changes) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvin_Abueva&diff=690259666&oldid=690208853 Two minor edits that might very well be true. Looking into this user’s contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/119.94.164.114 You will see that s/he has changed height and weight on multiple articles, a red flag. Talk page shows notice by ClueBot NG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:119.94.164.114 This all indicate someone who is probably Gaming the system (marking bad faith edits as minor to get less scrutiny). Nevertheless, it is not a clear n cut case. Doing my own research, I found several discrepancies on heights and weights of known athletes. Therefore, I am adding him to my watch list and leaving his edits as they are for now, assuming good-faith edits even if they are not.

An example of good-faith edit where a user accidently added completely irrelevant text to Barefoot article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barefoot&diff=686638875&oldid=686493947 This was supported by the fact that the above user made no other edits whatsoever anywhere else.

In the same above article, another user: 74.105.88.135 made 3 destructive edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barefoot&action=history More examples by anonymous 74.105.88.135 making destructive edits to Chipotle Mexican Grill: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chipotle_Mexican_Grill&diff=prev&oldid=690232597 To be absolutely sure, I compared this to other edits s/he had made. Looks awful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.105.88.135 Clear cases of vandalism that require escalating warnings, watch list and reporting.

Here is an example of Rofin-Sinar article edit by Erroomus that were tagged as (Tags: Possible vandalism, repeated addition of external links by non-auto confirmed user) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rofin-Sinar&diff=690265131&oldid=629733878 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rofin-Sinar&action=history Looking at the user's contribution, I find that this is the only edit done by this user. Reviewing his edit, there are no obvious red flags even though the edit seems a bit inflammatory. One link he added is dead (oversight?), but the other two are live and on the subject. This edit needs to be reviewed by someone close to this subject. Meanwhile, I am adding the user to my watch list and assuming good-faith edit.

Here is an example of an immature edit by 116.1.50.223 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cat_Cora&diff=690266170&oldid=690124069 But knowing nothing else, we have no basis to assume anything but good-faith edit.

Here is an example of user adding the words YO MAMA!!! to Digital Revolution article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_Revolution&diff=683992375&oldid=683783221 Looking at the user's history, I find that this is the only edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2605:6000:6EC3:C700:F022:5C34:F47B:52DB Again, without any other proves, we have to assume that this was an innocent error and assume good-faith.

An example where sections of article Plane were blanked and profanity added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plane&diff=690267609&oldid=689514640 Following the user to other pages, I find he had done the same before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnival_of_Venice&diff=690266993&oldid=690266894 Talk page shows two warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:110.175.0.234 I reverted his/ her changes as vandalism and added him/ her to my watch list.

An example of user attacking article Hanafi: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hanafi&action=history He made several destructive edits, basically destroying the whole article before being reverted by administrator Lankiveil. And even though he was labeled kindly as making good-faith edits, s/he continued with this agenda, effectively engaging in edit-war with an administrator. clear case of vandalism.

Here is an example of vandalism by someone who continuously and deliberately had made many repeated destructive edits to GNOME Terminal article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNOME_Terminal&action=history He was reverted repeatedly and warned so many times. Unfortunately, this is one of the cases where multiple anonymous users share same ip.