User:Hamuyi/Vandalism reversion

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.

Warning and reporting

• Please answer the following questions
  • Why do we warn users?

·To notify then that they are doing something wrong on wikipedia. And will be blocked if they do not stop. - YN True, but a better answer would be to encourage them not to repeat their mistake again, and contribute constructively.

• • When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

After 3im has been used. - N There is no such thing as a "level 3im" warning. The 4im warning is an "only warning" for users who have committed vandalism that is both severe in nature and unambiguously malicious (clearly not a test or light-hearted joke edit).

• • What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?

Block - N You cannot block users as you aren't an administrator. You should report them to AIV/VIP instead, where an administrator will notice the report and block them.

• Please give examples of three warnings that you might need to use while vandal patrolling and explain what they are used for.

Example 1: please stop doing your disruptive editing. Example 2: This is your 2/4 warnings stop or you will be blocked Example 3: Please stop. Next warning and you are blocked
N You were supposed to pick out three different warning templates which are intended for different purposes, and explain what each of them means, not write three warnings yourself. Also, you warned a user in Example 2 that they were going to be banned. Unlike in most online communities, blocking is not the same as banning - a "ban" on Wikipedia is a severe measure imposed after a community discussion upon long-term persistently disruptive editors, not garden-variety vandals.

• Find an edit which could be a test edit and revert it. Warn the user with the most appropriate template, then post the diff below.

I am guessing the best warning would be template 2? - N What exactly is "template 2"?

• 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.

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 vandlism edit would be something off-topic. A Good edit would be helpful and informational. - N The difference between "vandalism" and "good faith" has more to do with the editor's intentions than it does with the actual content of the edit. Vandalism refers to editing maliciously with the deliberate intent of disrupting Wikipedia, whereas good-faith edits are done with the goal of improving Wikipedia, even if they contain errors that require them to be reverted or are otherwise unsuitable. A user adding "off-topic" information to an article isn't vandalising unless they continue to do so after multiple warnings - even though their edit is inappropriate, they are still trying to improve the article by adding more info, and should be given a friendly notice and pointed to an article where their information would be more relevant rather than reprimanded for vandalism. The same goes for new editors who make edits that look like tests or light-hearted jokes - they should be pointed to the sandbox, rather than accused of vandalism.

• Here are some example edits. For each diff provided, state whether the edit is good-faith but unhelpful, or is pure vandalism. If it is a misguided good-faith edit, state why it is unhelpful or against policies.

1) en:Special:Diff/962964771
A:

2) en:Special:Diff/962963456
A:

3) en:Special:Diff/962963060
A:

4) en:Special:Diff/962963337
A:

• Now it's time to practice edit reversion for real. (Please wait until the previous exercises are marked before doing so). Find and revert three unhelpful edits, warn each user with the appropriate template, and state whether the edit was good-faith but unhelpful, or vandalism. A good way to find unconstructive edits is through the edit filter log, although not all edits caught by the filter are vandalism.

1)
Misguided or vandalism:

2)
Misguided or vandalism:

3)
Misguided or vandalism:

Dealing with difficult users

• Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?
• How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?

Protection

• In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
• In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
• Correctly request the protection of one page (semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.