User:Obtund/CVUA/Zedd/archive

Lessons
	Identifying Vandalism
	Warning Templates
	Rolling back
	Final exam

Hello Zedd (I hope that it's fine if I call you this), welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Every person I mentor 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. If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me here. I will check this page at least once a day while we're working together.

Just some basic info about the course

Zedd, the course I teach consists of six parts. Which are, learning how to identifying vandalism, learning which warning templates to use, rolling back edits, page protection, speedy deletions and new page patrolling. The course has a final exam after all the lessons. I check the page a least twice a day or more. I give a test every lesson so expect them. If you get less than 50% on that test, you fail that course, and we go to a more intense approach, which can take twice as long. Obtund^Talk 03:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

How to use this page

This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. As well as giving you important information, each section will contain various tasks, 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 as part of the task, please 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. There is a status bar above at the right. You can see that it is currently orange in each lessons but that will change. When the lesson is in progress the bar is yellow, when you pass it, it will turn green and if you fail it, it turns red. The exams are black and will change to green once you pass that course.Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page. Indicate below when you've read this and we'll get started! Obtund^Talk 03:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am ready for the classes :) Zědd (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Identifying Vandalism and Good Faith edits

Okay Zedd, since you are a pretty new editor, I'm going to start with the basics. If you're already familiar with some of this, it will go pretty quickly, though if you're not, there is no need to rush (the vandalism will still be out there when we finish!). I'm going to make an assumption here that you use Twinkle, but if you don't, just let me know whether you want to or not. I can teach you the techniques either manually or with Twinkle. Once you get Rollbacker status, you can use a tool like STiki or Huggle.

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 recognize 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. The first step is to make sure you've read: WP:AGF and WP:VAND. Just indicate below when those have been completed, and feel free to ask ANY questions you may have! Obtund^Talk 06:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I know how to handle Twinkle. Sorry for the wait, i was kind of busy :) I will read the guidelines today and be back to you tonite. Thanks. Zědd (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Test

Below, please write out an example of what would be vandalism and an example of what would be a good faith edit.
Well, the main difference between vandalism and good faith edits is the intention. Good faith edits are not vandalism because they usually just add facts that may or may not be true but they are not intended to harm the encyclopedia. Edits identified as vandalism are made with the clear intention to disrup the project and add nothing to the 'pedia more than disruption. Zědd (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Good!

Warning Templates

Then you probably already know the 4 levels of warning, but here's how they should be used and additional actions required when you get to Level 4 and beyond.

User has written I love Chris LOL! :) in the article on Monarch butterflies. This is their first edit on Wikipedia. Issue them a general note for vandalism (which van be found on twinkle by clicking the TW tab near the top right of the page and click on 'vandalism'). This is the same warning shown in WP:WARN.
The user has reverted your revert and has replaced the vandalism, or created new vandalism (or performed any other vandalism on the same day. Do the same process as above but give them a level 2 warning ( labelled as a caution on Twinkle)
The user is now seen as purposely vandalizing Wikipedia as they have, on the same day gone onto a completely different article and have placed 'Dfdfhhgrhdhdthdthdthdthdthgdhdthdhthhtdtfhdhdhdthdtfghfhtdh'. Like before, give them a warning but now under level 3 (labelled as warning on Twinkle). This message informs the user that they maybe blocked if they continue.
The user has continued to vandalize in another article. Issue them their final warning (level 4 labelled final warning using Twinkle). If, you are dealing with a registered account (not an IP) it is probably clear that this is a vandalism only account and you can report at WP:AIV using Twinkle. You click on the TW tab and click 'ARV'. Click on the 'select report type' and click vandalism. Then it asks you to tick a box, asking you why you have reported them. Click on 'Evidently a vandalism only account'. Note - you have an option to add a message. Then click 'submit query'.
If you have given the registered user another chance or the IP has continued to vandalize after the final warning, then report at WP:AIV using Twinkle and click on 'vandalism after final warning' with optional message and submit query.

If there is a user who already has a warning for vandalizing Wikipedia (on the same day you revert the vandalism) there is no need to start from a general note. If they were given a caution, give them a warning, if they were given a final warning on the same day, report them.

Given all that... here is your second test. I'll also be looking at your contributions periodically and checking reverts you do. If you have any questions, just ask. If you can let me know the time of day you typically edit, I'll be sure to check in around those times.

Test

If an editor was to vandalize a page and revert what you did and put it back, what level warning would you give them?
A level 2 warning at least. Zědd (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Y
If an editor just came off a block, and began to vandalize again what would you do, and what level warning would you give them.
Well, as he/she has been blocked for the same behaviour, I consider that a level 4 warning will be enough. Zědd (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Y - 4im warning would be more appropriate though.
If an editor has never vandalized before writes "This makes psychologists look very silly indeed" what level warning would you give them? (By the way this one is very tricky, think very hard about it.)
Well, this is not vandalism, IMO. It's just a personal opinion and i shall assume good faith on it. Then, i would warn the user by adding factual errors on the article or another more suitable template. Zědd (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Y

Rolling back

I would give you an analysis of rolling back, but if you are familiar with twinkle you should know. So if you are or are not familiar, just note it below and we can get started! Obtund^Talk 02:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)