User:Mz7/CVUA/FULBERT

Hello, and 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 in your answers, 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.

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.
 * How to use this page

Twinkle
Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.
 * Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.
 * I enabled Twinkle and set a couple of the preferences. Very interesting tool that I will need to practice with. FULBERT (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just checking in here. Throughout the course, I'll show you some of the basic counter-vandalism functions that Twinkle has, such as the warning and reporting function. If you have time, could you answer the questions below regarding the difference between good faith edits and vandalism? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Mz7 Will do! I have been exploring how to use Twinkle; I did not know you were going to talk about it more later. Thanks for the heads up! FULBERT (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism
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 recognise 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.


 * Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
 * Assuming good faith is a mainstay of Wikipedia itself, and is a fundamental concept to supporting a civil atmosphere. This basically means that it is a safe assumption to have that most editors want to improve upon Wikipedia than cause it harm. As such, it is valuable to correct or undo edits based on a belief that others are learning and need help in communicating the help they are trying to provide, rather than in assuming they are engaging in intentional malicious vandalism. Vandalism is intentionally trying to obstruct or defeat the purpose of Wikipedia itself, and it not the same as being overly bold, failing to meet the specific expectations of experienced editors, or causing disruptions based on strong beliefs or clouded perceptions over taking a neutral point of view. Vandalism edits intentionally challenge the notion of a free encyclopedia open to all through trying to trick, fool, or disrupt the system through hoaxes or removing content without explanation. While these are both more complex areas than I initially thought, assuming good faith edits mean assuming people edit Wikipedia to make it better and make errors along the way, rather than maliciously disrupting or destroying Wikipedia for its own sake. FULBERT (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ You're absolutely correct, and I'm impressed by the depth and insight in your answer. The key when it comes to determining whether an edit is vandalism is intention. Just because an edit is unhelpful or even disruptive does not mean that it is vandalism. On Wikipedia, vandalism is strictly defined as an edit that is made with the intention of going against Wikipedia's goals. If you are ever in doubt as to whether an edit is good faith or vandalism, the convention on Wikipedia is to assume good faith. Mz7 (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Here are a couple of the ones I found Mz7. Thank you! FULBERT (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Good faith

I will share 3 of my own: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dualistic_cosmology&diff=prev&oldid=822943760 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dualistic_cosmology&diff=prev&oldid=822943760 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polytheism&diff=prev&oldid=821110903


 * Vandalism

3 of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revisionism_(Ireland)&diff=prev&oldid=817483325 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=816905835 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=806404152


 * I just want to acknowledge that I have seen your responses and am working on composing feedback. I apologize for the delay in responding. I should be able to get the feedback posted at some point tomorrow. Mz7 (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Take your time; I have had some issues occupying my time recently so no rush Mz7. Many thanks! --- FULBERT (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, as it turns out, I didn't get the chance to post it when I said I would, so I appreciate your patience. I looked through the examples that you provided, and unfortunately, I'm not entirely sure that the three examples you provided meet Wikipedia's definition of "vandalism". In the Revisionism edit, the user who added the content did provide a source which does seem to verify at the very least the Michael D. Higgins quotes that were added. (I'm not an expert on this topic by any means, so please correct me if you think I'm wrong.) There may be other reasons the content is inappropriate—for example, if it would violate the neutral point of view policy—however, this would be a content dispute, which should be treated differently from vandalism. Generally, when editors add unsourced information, we tend to assume good faith at first unless it is blatantly false. Here are a few examples of blatant vandalism that I found the other day: . These are rather juvenile instances, which likely came from children editing from school, but I think if you compare these edits with the examples you provided, you might see a contrast in their intentions. Please let me know if you have any questions about anything I've written. If not, I'll post the next part of the course, which discusses warning vandals. Mz7 (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * All helpful points and input Mz7. This is very helpful to examine these outside the immediate context, as it is much clearer and speaks to the value in WP:COOL! Thanks for the thoughtful review and suggestions. --- FULBERT (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Great! I've posted the next set of questions below. Feel free to answer them whenever you get the chance. Mz7 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Warning and reporting
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. Further information can be found at WP:WARN and WP:UWUL."Sorry for the delays in replying Mz7, I have been a bit occupied with work and teaching! FULBERT (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)"
 * Not sure if you saw my reply here Mz7 so wanted to ping you again in case you need me to make any additional edits or comments on this. Thanks. FULBERT (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoops, my apologies. I hadn't realized that you responded yet. Great responses! I've left feedback and posted the next part of the course, which is a bit more hands-on and practical. Let me know if you have any questions whatsoever. Mz7 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Please answer the following questions:
 * Why do we warn users?
 * We warn users each and every time they engage in vandalism. This should include for both good faith edits or to inform them that their conduct is abusive or prohibitive. The intended outcome is to seek the user's compliance with agreed-upon Wikipedia processes and standards.
 * ✅ Good, the goal is to educate the users. I think in many instances, vandalism on Wikipedia is done by users who are simply curious: "Will I really be able to edit this page and have my changes visible around the world immediately?" Warnings are there to tell editors that they can edit and they they should refrain from making nonconstructive edits. Mz7 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
 * There are 4 levels of warning, and while they are often used in order, some such as 4im is the first and only warning that is offered in the case of assuming bad faith, along with a very strong cease and desist. This is generally used in the case of excessive or continuous disruption from a user or specific IP.
 * ✅ Excellent. When we have a user or IP committing particularly egregious or continued vandalism, a level 4im warning would be appropriate. Mz7 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?
 * All templates should be substituted when they are placed on a user talk page. This is so that when an editor saves a page, an item in the wikicode is permanently replaced with its current value, so when a template is substituted on a page, its appearance on that page will no longer be affected by later changes made to the template itself. Substitution is done using the modifier after the double opening braces.
 * ✅ Perfect. Mz7 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * If an editor continues to vandalize after a Level 4 or Level 4im warning, they should be reported to Administrator intervention against vandalism so an administrator will review their edits and determine if a bock is required.
 * ✅ Yes, exactly. Mz7 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Finding and reverting vandalism
Familiarize yourself with the page Special:RecentChanges. This is a list of all changes recently made to Wikipedia. You can filter it however you want, though most vandalism will probably be from unregistered users or newly registered accounts. You can also set up highlighting, in which a machine-learning algorithm will go through the recent changes and highlight the ones that are likely to be bad. Click the "diff" button to view each change and examine it for vandalism; if you find and instance of vandalism, revert it and warn the user appropriately.


 * Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Please include at least two test edits and at least two appropriate reports to AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below

I am not sure what happened with my notifications in this process with you User:Mz7, but I recall it somehow stalled in the busy-ness of life. Can I pick this up and continue this work with you again? Thanks in advance for your patience. --- FULBERT (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)