Make sure you read through Wikipedia:Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.
- 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. Each section will end with a task, written in red - 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.
The start edit
Twinkle edit
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. Shadestar474 (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 03:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- P.S. Within a few hours of activating it, Iβve already accidentally pressed the rollback button on a both good faith and constructive edit! (Donβt worry, I reverted it seconds after) Now I know what that button doesβ¦whoops.
Good faith and vandalism edit
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.
Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart. 4-5 sentences, in your own words.
- Good faith edits are edits made by people who are trying to help the encyclopedia, even if their edits may seem unconstructive. They are not always made by newcomers, although they often are (because newcomers might not understand the rules and etiquette of Wikipedia yet). Sometimes they are made by the most experienced of editors, like boldly editing, which is not vandalism, and is instead encouraged in most situations. They should not be treated like vandalism, and instead we should gently push new users to learn about the policies they may have inadvertently violated, for example, the policy to not use articles as test edit spaces. I would tell them apart by asking the user that made them about it, and if it is a topic I am not well-versed in, I would do some research to prevent this from happening again. Shadestar474 (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. Often it can be tricky when trying to determine if a user is a simple vandal/long term abuser or a good faith user trying to help. Itβs always best to discuss with the user when unsure. If they respond with something like βI didnβt know. Thank you.β You can likely AGF. If they respond with βgo awayβ, you can probably assume bad faith. - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 03:35, 16 November 2023 (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:
- [1] Looks like a bold edit, but is unexplained and does not appear constructive.
- , could be. Iβd investigate more before making a final verdict. Itβs also important to look at a users other contributions when making this decision. - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 03:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- [2] Again, is unexplained removal.
- Yep. - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 03:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yep.
- [3] They probably are very rooted in what they think, and were not trying to harm Wikipedia, but wanted to share what they think everyone else should think with the world. Appears to be vandalism on the surface, but is probably good, if ill-guided, faith.
Shadestar474 (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Β Unlikely. The user appears to be an anti-Wikipedia user. (An editor whose edits express a distain towards Wikipedia). Whether their intent was to assist readers or promote Wikipedia hate is up for speculation. - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 03:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Vandalism:
- [4] Enstooled is just a funny way of saying installed. I donβt think this couldβve been a good faith edit, but I was just going with my gut for this. It was before I knew you have to use logic and careful consideration.
Β I disagree. Enstooled is another term for enthronement, not a funny way of saying installed. If youβre ever not sure about reverting. Donβt revert. We want quality reverts, not necessarily a lot of them. - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 03:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- [5] Seems very opinionated, and looks like they were trying to get attention, as is mentioned in the motivation of a vandal.
- Now blocked for vandalism. - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 03:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- [6] Seems like just random nonsense put there to disrupt.
Shadestar474 (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 03:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Note: I am probably being terrible at assuming good faith here, I donβt have tons of practice at that, but I think this is the practice, so I will try as best I can.
- No problem. If you already knew all of this stuff, you wouldnβt need to take the course! - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 04:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Iβd like to see just a little more work in good faith v.s vandalism detection. Please determine if these edits are vandalism or good faith and explain why in 2-3 sentences.
- 1
- It looks like they were putting genuine information on there, just they didnβt know it has to be sourced and they also didnβt know how to spell or use grammar.
- 2
- Looks like blanking.
- 3 (Note WP:LISTPEOPLE)
- I canβt understand this diff bc itβs in a different format than the one Iβm used to for some reason.
Iβm sufficiently satisfied. 
Β Passed pt. #1 - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 04:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Warning and reporting edit
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.
Why do we warn users?
- To make sure they know the policies they are violating, so that if they didnβt know, now they do. And also to give them time before they are blocked (if they continue down this path) to change their path.
- - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 11:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
- If the actions taken by the user being given the warning are so drastic that they warrant such an immediate blocking.
- I think youβre on the right track here. - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 12:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think youβre on the right track here.
Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?
- Yes, because if the warning template changes in the future, the record of what you put on there will change, and the meaning of it might as well. As to how, you just do it like this: {{subst|template}}
- Yep. - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 11:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yep.
What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
- Report them to ANI
- Β Nope. When youβre free, re-read WP:VANDALISM and respond back with a new answer! - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 11:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Report them to AIV?
- . Yep! Twinkle can help with this too. - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 22:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Report them to AIV?
Please give examples (using {{Tlsubst|''name of template''}}) 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.
- {{subst:uw-subtle1}} Should be used for instances of subtle vandalism, for example, knowingly inserting false information into an article that is plausible enough that most readers could see it and say, βOh, that seems legit.β
- - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 20:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{subst:uw-disruptive1}} Should be used for instances of disruptive, but not vandalism, editing, for example, trying to promote oneself.
- , but promotional edits have their own template, {{uw-advert1}}. - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 20:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{subst:uw-blank1}} Should be used for instances of blanking, for example, deleting the contents of a whole page or only some of the page.
- - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 20:00, 19 November 2023 (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: {{subst:uw-test1}}, {{subst:uw-test2}} and {{subst:uw-test3}}.
Find and revert some vandalism. (Not good faith edits) Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Please include at least two appropriate reports to AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below.
I am going to be busy tomorrow, I will do all of the vandalism reverts below the day after tomorrow. Thanks for understanding, Shadestar474 (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Of course. This course is entirely at your own pace! - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 11:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Also, a question, do I have to revert the vandalism to put it on this table? Because, when Iβm recent changes patrolling, all the vandalism gets reverted by other people within seconds of it happening, so I canβt get to the vandalism in time to revert it.
- This has been a problem for other students too. Users with more advanced tools, like Hugggle, often beat newer vandal fighters to vandalism. How about this: At least 5 need to be your reverts, the rest can be others, but you must explain if you think the revert was good or bad. - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 22:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you! And it says to revert vandalism, but can they be reverts of unconstructive, but good faith, edits? I just reverted one of those and am wondering if I can put it into the table.
- I guess thatβs fine. Try to do as many of your own reverts as you can, and less of others than. Please also remember to warn users. Thanks! - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 00:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you! And it says to revert vandalism, but can they be reverts of unconstructive, but good faith, edits? I just reverted one of those and am wondering if I can put it into the table.
- This has been a problem for other students too. Users with more advanced tools, like Hugggle, often beat newer vandal fighters to vandalism. How about this: At least 5 need to be your reverts, the rest can be others, but you must explain if you think the revert was good or bad. - π₯π°πππππππ πππππ (ππππ)π₯ 22:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Also, a question, do I have to revert the vandalism to put it on this table? Because, when Iβm recent changes patrolling, all the vandalism gets reverted by other people within seconds of it happening, so I canβt get to the vandalism in time to revert it.
Also, I reverted some blatant vandalism and used a 4im template, I was wondering if the edit constituted that. I was confident it did, but that was my first time, so I just wanted to check with a more experienced editor. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Mast&diff=prev&oldid=1202184356 Shadestar474 (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Reported to AIV for the first time! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1202440770 I wouldβve put it in the table, but it was full. Shadestar474 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)