User:Michael Anon/CVUA

__NOINDEX__ Below is some tasks I have set. Please answer the questions when you have spare time. I will use it to judge, as well as your other work, to see whether you are ready to graduate from the academy and request rollback at WP:PERM.

Tasks I
I've already briefly looked through all the pages referenced, but will re-read them more thoroughly to ensure I haven't missed anything. Michael Anon (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:VAND ✅ Michael Anon (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NOTVAND ✅ Michael Anon (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:AGF ✅ Michael Anon (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:VAND ✅ Michael Anon (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:WARN ✅ Michael Anon (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:GAIV ✅ Michael Anon (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Taking your word for it! Please refer to these as often as you can, there is some really good information in these, which will be useful thorughout your academy. I may ask some questions on this in this section, so keep your eye out. Sorry about doubling vand :)--Chip123456 16:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Task II

 * Please find 4 diffs of vandalism you have reverted. Explain why you thought it was appropriate to use your tools to revert it ✅ Michael Anon (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do just you want diffs of vandalism where I have assumed bad faith and given a level three or higher warning or is any diff which has resulted in a vandalism template warning acceptable? Michael Anon (talk)
 * Any vandalism reverts will be fine. However, please explain why it was vandalism, not good faith.--Chip123456 16:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please find 3 diff of good faith edits you have reverted. Why were they good faith, not vandalism? ✅ Michael Anon (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The following reverts are essentially identical: they are all reverts of the first and only contribution by the editor and remove one or more Example images added to an article. On this basis, I interpreted the edits as tests and notified the editors with the {{subst:uw-test1}} or {{subst:welcometest}} templates, the latter of which I have since adopted for similar edits due to the increased amount of information it provides potentially constructive new users.


 * Really impressed with the tables. I like the way you have handled the reverts. Your ability to assume good faith shows your understanding side, which also shows that you can tell what is and what isn't vandalism. Great work.--Chip123456 17:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Michael Anon (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please find 3 correct reports you have made at WP:AIV ✅ Michael Anon (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 209.12.14.250 (report) Response: IP blocked for one month
 * 71.192.223.167 (report) Response: IP blocked for 31 hours
 * 96.49.130.91 (alias Marimari5858) (report) Response: IP blocked for 31 hours; account blocked indefinitely


 * ✅ Good, I like the fact that in 2 of them you have provided diffs, which really makes things easier for the admin.--Chip123456 16:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll try to provide links to all relevant diffs in future. Michael Anon (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please find one failed report at AIV. Why did you think the user wasn't blocked? How will you use this in the future to help you report? ✅ Michael Anon (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean one of my reports or any unsuccessful report? Michael Anon (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I mean an unsuccesful report.--Chip123456 17:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The most recent failed report was Tom Reedy's report against  140.200.7.58 (report) (response). This report failed because the IP had been insufficiently warned. Although the IP had received six previous warnings, the last was given two months ago. Assuming good faith, the IP could have belonged to another person at that point. The present editor therefore needed to at least be warned about their behaviour to encourage them to edit constructively - blocking is a last resort. A further problem was that there had been no final warning and therefore no direct indication of the possible consequences of unconstructive editing that might persuade the person to beneficially modify Wikipedia.
 * The lessons I would take from this report are that IP warnings don't last long when assuming good faith and in any event there must be a final warning before a report is made to WP:AIV.


 * ✅ Yeah, IP's are very different compared to users. For example, after a new user has vandalised a page 3 times and has had 3 warnings, you can probably tell it's a vandal only account and then report. Where as with an IP, it's not an account, so warnings have to be handed out differently. --Chip123456 21:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A user has blanked a wiki page. What do you check before reverting? ✅ Michael Anon (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I examine the content that was deleted and evaluate whether there was a legitimate reason for it to be removed (which the user may have mentioned in their edit summary). Material that could be legitimately blanked includes copyright violations,  personal attacks and (the example from  some earlier reading)  inaccurate or biased information about a living person.


 * Yellow check.svg Yeah, you bring up some good reasons. Also, make sure that its not this.--Chip123456 21:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out the template. I had seen the criterion while looking through the criteria for speedy deletion, but hadn't thought to include it because I didn't think it would be especially common, instead acknowledging that I had only provided an incomplete list of legitimate reasons for blanking. I would be interested to know the rationale behind the criterion - why should the sole substantial author of a page be allowed to delete a constructive Wikipedia entry? Doesn't that constitute ownership? Michael Anon (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a really interesting question. There are some basic ground rules if it is a constructive page, for example, the author must be one of few or the only editor who has contributed to the page. As for ownership, I think its more out of courtesy that if an editor isn't too happy on their newly created page, it can be deleted and recreated at another date. If there is a problem, the page can always be restored by a sysop or steward.Chip123456 09:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * An IP address has just been unblocked after a block was given them for 24hrs because they vandalised. They, as soon as the block expires, have resumed vandalisng wikipedia, 3 times. Do you:
 * A - Give them a general note for unconstructive editing
 * B - Give them an only warning
 * C - Report them immediately to WP:AIV

✅ Michael Anon (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The starting point for this scenario has to be assuming good faith: assuming that the editor is trying to help Wikipedia. The extent to which this presumption could be rebutted would be based on the IP's edits; if the edits could be unambiguously construed as unconstructive, which I will assume is the case in this scenario, I would suggest that the presumption could be reasonably rebutted.


 * However, there is a further complication in this scenario: the edits were made by an IP address. Assuming good faith, I would presume that the editor were different to the one blocked and new to Wikipedia. The fact that the block was short and the vandalism started immediately after it lapsed would suggest that the editor might be the same person given the short amount of time for the IP to be reallocated. However, the determining factor in whether the assumption of good faith could be rebutted would be the nature of the edits. If they represented the same type of vandalism and focused on the same subject, it would strongly suggest that the same person was responsible. I would therefore issue {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} for "excessive [and] continuous disruption from a … specific IP" (option B). On the other hand, if the vandalism were of a different type or focused on a different topic, I would assume that the editor were new and issue a specific warning template for each page unconstructively edited, starting at level 1 and escalating as appropriate (option A).


 * Yellow check.svg.To your former comment, is it good to assume good faith if the IP has vandalised, 3 times as it says? What I would do, is issue an Only warning, and if they persist, immediately report. As you said, IP editors are hard to tell if it is the same person. But if they have been blocked before, we have to think of the damage they are causing to the site.--Chip123456 16:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My understanding of WP:AGF is that you always start by assuming good faith; evidence to the contrary (such as three instances of vandalism) can then rebut the presumption. I acknowledge that the IP is responsible for damage to Wikipedia, but this damage is easily reverted. Moreover, without some kind of evidence that the editor is the same, it seems unfair to penalise a potentially new and inexperienced user with their final warning after three edits simply because the IP was previously blocked for vandalism. In any event, the difference between our conclusions are minor: I would wait for two more instances of vandalism before requesting a block; you would wait one. I believe that this is a worthwhile delay to encourage, so far as is reasonably possible, constructive edits by IPs. Michael Anon (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's always good to assume good faith, but that's when it is an innocent test edit or something minor, not vandalism.--Chip123456 17:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Following greater understanding of the technical meaning of "vandalism" and the extent of the assumption of good faith, I would agree with your conclusion and choose option B in the scenario regardless of the type and location of the vandalism. Michael Anon (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please find (if any) 1 report you have made at WP:RFPP, because there has been a lot of vandalism from several users/IP's on that page ✅ Michael Anon (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Olympic Games (request) Response: granted temporary semi-protection until the conclusion of the 2012 Summer Olympics


 * ✅ This report is good. I like the fact you have suggested an idea, which was used, showing your understanding.--Chip123456 16:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Has a vandalising user/IP ever caused you any stress? If so, how did you handle it? Please state the user/IP name ✅ Michael Anon (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In short, vandals haven't caused me any stress because
 * the majority of people edit to benefit Wikipedia;
 * no permanent damage is caused by vandalism; and
 * we have the technical  advantage.


 * How have you dealt with these issues?--Chip123456 16:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Vandals haven't caused me any stress and there have therefore been no "issues" to deal with. Michael Anon (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So, then, how would you deal with it if you came across the above situations?--Chip123456 16:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I still don't completely understand your question (what situations are you referring to?), but assume that you are asking what I would do if I did become stressed. My response would simply be to walk away and find something else to do until I felt able to edit calmly again. Michael Anon (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Yep, I was asking you what to do if you became stressed.--Chip123456 17:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Task III
Michael Anon (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC) ✅ Michael Anon (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC) ✅ Michael Anon (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please go into recent changes to and revert vandalism for 10 - 15 minutes. Please show the diffs, show the warnings, and, if any, show reports

✅ Again, great work! I'm just going to go over your contribs and see whether I think you are ready for rollback.--Chip123456 09:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have mentioned that I'm not actually interested in gaining the rollback permission at the moment - I much prefer to manually evaluate every contribution an editor has made to a page and add edit summaries explaining any reverts. I applied to CVUA to improve my understanding of vandalism policies and have my contributions evaluated by an experienced editor, not to gain any particular permission as a result. Michael Anon (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, thats fine. I'm pretty unsure what to do here, all of our students who join, usually join to get rollback at the end. Have you installed twinkle? and, yeah, thats fine, If you dont wish to have rollback, thats fine :)--Chip123456 10:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have tried using Twinkle, albeit briefly, but prefer to check and preview my changes in a way that the tool simply doesn't permit (another reason for my rejection of rollback). Michael Anon (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, thats fine. So, have you got any questions, etc? I would like you to get something good from this, which I hope you have!! What things would you like to know/understand better?--Chip123456 10:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've definitely learnt that the extent to which good faith should be assumed is far more complicated than I had expected; I hope to continue to develop my understanding of the policy as I remove unconstructive edits. However, I do have one question: under what circumstances should warnings be returned to an editor's talk page if removed by the editor? My understanding is that while "notice[s] regarding … active sanction[s]" cannot be removed, this only extends to blocking templates, not warnings. Is this correct and does the policy differ for IP addresses? Michael Anon (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This policy does not differ for IP addresses. Editors/Anon's can remove warnings. What they cant remove are unblock requests until the block has ended or the blocking templates until the block has expired. If users persist on removing them, they will hae their access to their talk revoked.--Chip123456 11:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I think you've now answered all the questions I have for the moment. Michael Anon (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please then revert 3 good faith edits. Show the diffs, and show any interaction you had with that user ✅ Michael Anon (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

✅--Chip123456 11:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

''I have created this rather than using others' resources. I may use others when deemed appropriate''.