User:Miszatomic/Adoption school

Hi, and welcome to your CVUA school. By the time you've completed the tests and tasks here, you should have a good working knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and processes regarding vandalism, and should have no difficultyidentifying, reverting, warning and reporting vandals. You can ask me questions on my talkpage at any time if you aren't sure about anything here, and I also welcome suggestions for ways of improving this course.

You can complete the sections in any order; let me know when you've finished one and I'll mark it and close it for you. Save for a few cases, there are generally multiple ways to answer the questions; not many of them have clear right/wrong answers. Although I'll always try and give a reason for each mark, the basic responses you'll see are:
 * ✅ Good answer; interprets policy correctly and shows a sound understanding of the issues involved.
 * Incomplete/insufficient answer; whilst partly correct, there are better responses to this question.
 * Poor answer; shows an inadequate understanding of the policies and guidelines concerned.

Have fun!

Vandals
Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, not all the edits that are made are constructive - some, in fact, are deliberately disruptive and need to be reverted. Please have a read of this essay and this guideline, then answer the questions and perform the tasks below. There's no time limit for this, it's more important that your work in this area be accurate than fast. If you aren't sure whether it's vandalism or not, it probably isn't.

Good faith and vandalism

 * Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart. a good faith edit is a person who edit an article but has no intention to vandalize the article.
 * Not exactly, but close - more importantly, how do you tell the difference?


 * Please find and revert three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. Please warn the editors with the correct template and give the diffs of your revisions below.

Good faith reverts

 * 
 * Your revert actually broke the link again - the URL that the IP added was correct. Remember, IP edits are not automatically unproductive; most of the actual work around here is in fact done by IPs.


 * 
 * Again, you've actually undone a useful edit here. BrokenMirror2's correction of the spacing in the Persian text actually made it meaningful - without the spaces, it's pretty much gibberish.


 * 
 * It's not the worst edit I've ever seen, comprising as it does a degree of original research, but it was sourced (the source itself is here) - I would have considered discussing this with the editor in question before reverting.

Vandalism reverts

 * ([warinig])
 * Definitely not vandalism. This was quite clearly a good faith edit intended to clarify the target articles of the disambig page.


 * ([warning])
 * Again, this is not vandalism. There's no disruption intended here, it's just a minor wording change.


 * warning
 * This could arguably be a good faith attempt to incorporate new information into the article - in the light of the editor's other contributions it's pretty clearly spam, but I'm not sure how you could have known that using only STiki.

Warning and reporting

 * Please answer the following questions
 * Why do we warn users?
 * so the user does not vandalize articles and to make them stop
 * It's also important lto leave warnings so that other editors can easily see when a user has been vandalising repeatedly.


 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
 * if they are constantly vandalizing articles mostly for sock poppets, vandals are are here to cause trouble
 * 4im warnings are appropriate for:
 * egregious vandalism (such as severe personal attacks, threats of violence or inserting external links to shock sites)
 * repeated vandalism for which the user has not been warned (ie. if they've made enough vandalism edits to warrant a first, second, third and fourth warning, but these have not been given)
 * vandalism where the username clearly suggests an intent to cause disruption or push a specific agenda

Done ,
 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * Please give examples of three warnings that you might need to use while vandal patrolling and explain what they are used for.
 * Report 2 users to AIV and post the diffs below. Be sure to follow the guidelines and only report users where necessary; do not report simply for the sake of this task.
 * You were correct to report 207.74.164.210, but 24.248.155.193 hadn't been warned sufficiently. Unless there's a really good reason to stop them straight away, editors need to have received a level 4 warning prior to being reported at AIV. That doesn't mean they have to have gone through the full set of warnings, but there needs to be at least one message on their talkpage to the effect that "if you do that again, you will be blocked". Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  18:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users

 * Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?
 * because their intention is to be disruptive by removing text or modifying that is nonsensical also we dont make a fuss about them since it fans the flame and make the situation worst
 * ✅ Most vandals are looking for attention; simply reverting them and sending them templated messages denies them this. Engaging them in disputes and time-wasting arguments simply provides the attention that they want, so we avoid doing so.


 * How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?
 * Good faith edit is trying help the project out whereas trolls deliberately and intentionally attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. They often want to inflame or invite conflict
 * Okay, but look at the question again - how do you tell the difference between someone who's asking a genuine question, and someone who's trolling you?

Protection

 * In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
 * if the page is edit by unregistered users
 * ✅ I think you mean "vandalised by unregistered users", but yes, that's the most common reason.


 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * if there is edit warring between ips and users
 * IPs don't have to be involved - in any case where there's edit warring going on that involved registered users, full protection is an avenue to consider.

done here
 * Correctly request the protection of one page (semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.
 * Alice and Bob wasn't a very good call (and the less said about the Main Page the better...) but Newcastle United F.C. did indeed need protection (and was locked for three months as a result of your report).

Related pages

 * Anti-vandalism for beginners
 * Twinkle for beginners