User:Mz7/CVUA/Mark Jhomel

I would like to first thank, who has graciously published his training methods on-wiki. As I think his methods are of higher quality than anything I could achieve on myself, I will be using them for your training. Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

-

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.

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
 * 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.

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 already enabled twinkle sir, yesterday. Mark Jhomel (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Great! Mz7 (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2017 (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 labelling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.

"I believe that 'good faith' are those edits which sometimes good and sometimes bad. If it's bad, then the editor doesn't intend to make it bad because people do mistakes. Meanwhile, 'vandalism' refers to purposely destroy, write up the wrong information, intentionally write unsourced material by their own will, and others." ✅ Yes, this is the correct understanding. Note that it is oftentimes easy to mistake unhelpful, yet good faith edits for bad faith ones. Mislabeling good faith edits as vandalism is harmful to the encyclopedia because it can drive the good faith editors away, when they merely made mistakes that could be corrected. Mz7 (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
 * I will note in particular that "intentionally write unsourced material by their own will" is very difficult to tell, and in fact it's not always vandalism. If an editor adds unsourced material, and there is no other evidence that the edit is vandalism, we should assume good faith. Additionally, realize that Verifiability only requires citations for information that is "challenged or likely to be challenged". As a result, an editor could be intentionally adding unsourced content, but it may not be vandalism because they could believe it simply does not require a citation. Mz7 (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2017 (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
 * Good Faith 1
 * Good Faith 2
 * Good Faith 3


 * Vandalism
 * Vandalism 1
 * Vandalism 2
 * Vandalism 3
 * Vandalism 4
 * Vandalism 5

, I apologize for the unclear instructions. You've definitely explained examples of unhelpful good faith and bad faith edits well. See, however, if you can find three actual examples of unhelpful good faith edits and three actual examples of bad faith edits in the form of diffs. (A "diff" is a link to a page that shows the differences between two revisions of an article. For example, this is the diff of you answering these questions.) Looking at diffs and linking to them is an essential counter-vandalism skill, especially if you are ever asked to provide evidence of vandalism at an administrators' noticeboard. Mz7 (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much sir for that clear explanation. I read about good faith, bad faith and vandalism. It is hard to differentiate one from each other but I will take the time to carefully analyze their difference. Actually I spent about 2 hours reading again and again about vandalism in Wikipedia. I also looked out for the examples. I also read about diffs. Diffs are very helpful to determine the vandalism performed in an article. Thank you sir. Mark Jhomel (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I am currently looking for the examples sir. I'll be back when it's done. Have a nice day. Mark Jhomel (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sir I want you to see my contributions in reverting and rollbacking vandalisms. Mark Jhomel (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I took a look, and the diffs you provided do show a proper distinction between good faith edits and vandalism, though I would say this one is a helpful good-faith edit, rather than unhelpful.
 * I took a look through your communications with other editors on your talk page, and I noticed an important issue that which relates to assuming good faith. In two of your conversations on User talk:Mark Jhomel, you told other editors to "assume good faith", with a link to WP:AGF (diffs: ). Why did you think that was necessary? Note that criticism of your edits on Wikipedia is not an assumption of bad faith – in fact, when another editor gives you constructive criticism (as I am doing now), telling them to "assume good faith" carries the impression that you assume that the other editor is not assuming good faith of you, when clearly they haven't accused you of editing in bad faith. If I were you, I would avoid even mentioning "assume good faith" in almost any discussion you will ever have with another editor in the future – unless another editor is explicitly accusing you of vandalism, in almost every case it is unnecessary. It is safe to assume the assumption of good faith.
 * I just did it because I am afraid that I did something wrong to the other users. I don't want anyone to be annoyed at me every time I did something wrong. I just want them to know that all of my intentions here in Wikipedia are in good faith, and I don't want to harm any articles, pages or any Wikipedia content. MARK JHOMEL  💣  💥  01:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand. In the future, try to trust that the other editor already knows you are here in good faith. If you've made a mistake and someone is annoyed at you, apologize and adjust so that you don't make the same mistake again, but telling them to "assume good faith" oftentimes makes them even more annoyed, since assuming good faith is usually exactly what they were doing. Mz7 (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. I will keep that in mind. :) MARK JHOMEL  💣  💥  07:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I also noticed that you are applying for many different rights at Requests for permissions (including AWB, pending changes reviewer, and rollback). Please be mindful of requesting too many rights at one time. Some administrators take this as a sign of "hat collecting", or requesting rights solely because one thinks they make them look like a better editor, rather than for any actual benefit to the project. In your rationale for requesting rights, you should make clear what you intend to do with the right.
 * Please let me know whether you understand what I have written here or if you have any questions – once you do, I'll release your next assignment. (Also, as I said earlier, you can stop calling me "sir". We're all typically very friendly here, so there's no need for such formality.) Mz7 (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that those tools can improve my contributions here in Wikipedia. I will never do hat collecting because we are all volunteer and I'm not a boastful person to take a pride on my user-permission/privileges. I dedicate myself in Wikipedia since I have already graduated college, and I'm looking forward for those tools to help me in my contributions. MARK JHOMEL  💣  💥  01:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We can start the next topic on this course, I guess. And thank you for those checks. :) MARK JHOMEL  💣  💥  01:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've published the next topic below. Please see also my response above. Mz7 (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2017 (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.


 * Please answer the following questions:
 * Why do we warn users?
 * We do warn users if they violate Wikipedia guidelines. I believe that giving a warning will let them know what they are doing. I also believe that if the edits are made good faith but with warning, this will lead the editor to think what's gone wrong and to be on a good track. If issued to vandals, I think that warnings will make them afraid of being blocked, forcing them not to vandalize article/pages anymore. Mark Jhomel (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is close to the right understanding. The primary reason for giving warnings is to educate users. This is why even for vandals, we will often start with Template:Uw-vandalism1, which doesn't even mention the ability to block at first. Sometimes, what may appears to be a vandal at first may simply be a curious user making a test edit: "Can I really edit pages?" We want to educate these users that other editors can and will revert unconstructive edits and that if they would like to make helpful edits, they are more than welcome to. It has less to do with trying to "make vandals afraid" – in fact, many really aren't afraid of blocks and will actually try to vandalize persistently until they are blocked in order to waste the time of other editors. Mz7 (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies because I did not considered new users in my answer. My answer was only focused to the users with experience, and that's why I think my answer is wrong. Anyway, I want to thank you for making that clear for me. Mark Jhomel (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
 * We shall give a level 4im warning if the editors deliberately vandalize pages. In other words, we issue level 4im to them if their only intention is to destroy the information provided in the articles. Mark Jhomel (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This answer (or the way you've phrased it) is incorrect. A level 4im warning looks like this: Template:Uw-vandalism4im. In accordance with its definition, all vandalism on Wikipedia is a deliberate attempt to harm the project, such as by destroying information. But it is not the case that we give every single vandal a level 4im warning. Instead, even for users who vandalize articles, it is sometimes the case that they can be "turned to the good side" if we let them know politely that what they did was unconstructive. In the best case scenario, a warning like Template:Uw-vandalism1 causes a vandal to learn more about constructively editing Wikipedia, and they in turn become a constructive contributor.
 * However, there are cases when an edit is so egregious or so clearly indicative that the user is not interested in benefiting Wikipedia that we can immediately tell them "stop now or you will be blocked". What do you think could be an example of such a case? Mz7 (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, I was once given a level 4im for personal attack against another user. But I can confidently tell that I am not given any level 4im because of vandalism. I really want to know more about when and how to give level 4im warnings, and I am currently looking for the answers. Thanks. Mark Jhomel (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's not good. I hope you've learned from that incident, as personal attacks are one instance of behavior that is seldom tolerated by the Wikipedia community. The community can typically understand infrequent outbursts of frustration, but calling other editors names and attacking them personally is against all of our values, and indeed, if an editor establishes a pattern of personal attacks, they will be asked to leave the project – in some cases, through a level 4im warning.
 * For the purposes of this course, my goal is to train you on how to counter vandalism – the overwhelming majority of vandalism you encounter will be performed by relatively inexperienced users. Although it is not against any guidelines, keep in mind that it is usually frowned upon to use templated user warnings on more experienced editors: Don't template the regulars is a community essay about this. In the context of counter-vandalism, level 4im warnings are used against extraordinarily grotesque or offensive vandalism that is intolerable. You may already know that Wikipedia has a very strict policy regarding how we write about living people. This is because articles about living persons can have an impact on the actual lives of the subjects of the articles, so it is vital that we get the article right. If a user vandalizes Wikipedia with potentially libellous content against a living person, we want to make it clear that we do not tolerate such deliberate misinformation, and that's one example of when a level 4im would be appropriate.
 * There are ultimately no hard rules for when to use and when not to use level 4im warnings, but you should use them sparingly, and only for extraordinarily offensive, intolerable vandalism, not for "common" or more juvenile vandalism. Use your best judgment. Mz7 (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's clear for me now. Thank you so much! Mark Jhomel (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?
 * Yes, because as said by Wikipedia, templates are constantly deleted and change. If the templates placed on the user's talk page were change, then maybe we can't trace what its old content. Also, if the template are being deleted (like what happened on my user page, when VB.Net template was deleted, all of the remains are red link) it can cause a red link. Mark Jhomel (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yes, indeed you should always substitute templated user warnings whenever you place them on user talk pages, since we want them to forever reflect what we intended them to reflect at the time we posted the message.
 * Do you think you could explain more about how to substitute a template? In other words, what would you type in the edit window in order to substitute a template? Mz7 (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We shall use subst: inside of template if we want to use substitute, for example, subst:VB.Net. Also, I read that when you placed that subst: in a template, and if the template was updated, the substitute will never be updated. Mark Jhomel (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yes, exactly. Thanks for clarifying! Mz7 (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * I believe that if a user received that kind of warning level, we should immediately report it to the administrator to prevent what they done or what they are doing. Reporting them can minimize other article's risk of being destroyed and vandalized. Mark Jhomel (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Reporting to an administrator is correct. What, however, is the best page on Wikipedia where you can request administrator intervention against vandalism? Mz7 (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't know where to request administrator intervention, but I believe that administrator will know if we placed the correct warning tags on a particular page or the respective user's talk page. I'm sorry.
 * I considered asking the same question in the Teahouse but I am afraid that it is a form of cheating, so I will honestly tell you that I am not familiar with the answer. Help me. Thanks. Mark Jhomel (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is okay, if you don't know the answer to a question, to say, "I don't know." But I want you to read through Wikipedia's help, policy, and guideline pages first – many of the answers to the questions I ask will be contained within the readings I assign you, and the rest of the answers you will know through experience.
 * In this case, WP:UWUL states: If an editor continues to vandalize after a Level 4 warning or Level 4im warning, they should be reported to Administrator intervention against vandalism.. Twinkle makes it easy to report a user to Administrator intervention against vandalism: In the Twinkle dropdown, click "ARV" while looking at a user talk page. This will give you a pop-up form which you can fill out to automatically report the user to WP:AIV.
 * If you have questions about any of the feedback I have written here, please let me know. I want to ensure that you understand everything before moving on to the next assignment. Mz7 (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. I forgot. About two days ago, I read the guidelines regarding how to use Twinkle and all of it's scope. Then, by clicking the TW dropdown on the top of every page, there's an ARV options, so I hover the mouse on that ARV and it says "Report this User/IP to administrators", then it will ask for your reason why are you reporting that particular IP address or user. Thank you, I can remember it now. That's all, I have no questions since you explained it all really well. Mark Jhomel (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Please give examples (using ) of three different warnings (not different levels of the same warning and excluding the test edit warning levels referred to below), that you might need to use while recent changes patrolling and explain what they are used for.
 *  if the user has deleted all of the contents of the article, or if the user deleted a particular section for his intentional purpose or will.
 * Note that sometimes, deleting a particular section of an article is justifiable. For a common example, per WP:BURDEN, content that is unsourced or poorly sourced (i.e. lacking citation to a reliable source) may be removed by anyone and cannot be restored without a citation.  should be applied if a user has removed content without explanation, and personally, if the removed content was unsourced, I wouldn't revert. Mz7 (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 *  if the user deletes a template like maintenance tags.
 * Again, maintenance tags can also be deleted justifiably. Make sure that you are only issuing a warning if a user has removed a maintenance tag without explanation or any evidence of them fixing the problem that the tag suggests. If there is evidence of them attempting to fix the problem, avoid reverting, and if you think the problem is still present, sending a customized user talk page message (rather than a template) is better. Mz7 (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So does the , if they deleted a speedy deletion tag by the article creator itself.
 * is better for this purpose. Mz7 (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And , if the user adds an unreferenced and controversial information about a living person. Mark Jhomel (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ This is correct. The biographies of living persons policy is one of our most important policies on Wikipedia. All of us have a responsibility to uphold it and warn those who violate it. Mz7 (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Make sure you keep in mind that some edits that seem like vandalism can be test edits. This happens when a new user is experimenting and makes accidental unconstructive edits. Generally, these should be treated with good faith, especially if it is their first time, and warned gently. The following templates are used for test edits:, and.

I just wanted to make sure you know about Special:RecentChanges, if you use the diff link in a different window or tab you can check a number of revisions much more easily. If you enable Hovercards in the Hover section of your preferences, you can view the diff by just hovering over it. Alternately, you can press control-F or command-F and search for "tag:". some edits get tagged for possible vandalism or section blanking. Mz7 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted, like you said days ago, using diffs are very helpful in terms of analyzing a vandalism. Thanks. Mark Jhomel (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is your next assignment. Mz7 (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good day. Please give me at least 12 hours to answer this because I have a job interview. Thank you and enjoy your day. :) Mark Jhomel (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Best of luck! Mz7 (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Finding and reverting vandalism
Your next assignment. Mz7 (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC) I'm currently doing it right now but I think that it will take sometime. Thanks. :) Mark Jhomel (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 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
 * Yes, absolutely. This one is more in-depth than the other assignments, so feel free to take your time. It's best not to rush this one, since you'll be interacting with real people! Mz7 (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)