User:Sportzpikachu/CVUA/Tasks

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 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 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.

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.

Communication

Counter-vandalism work can result in very large watchlists, which can make it more difficult to monitor pages using that alone. For this reason, I will ping you whenever I update this page with some feedback or a new task; I would also ask you to ping me when you have completed a task, so that I get a notification telling me that it's ready for review. See WP:PING for details on how to do this if you aren't sure.

The start

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.

Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.

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

Vandalism

Warning and reporting

After reverting an edit, you can select the kind of warning (for different offences), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4, for increasing severity) to place on a user's talk page. 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?

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?

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

Please give examples (using {{tls|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.

Blanking

Sometimes during your patrolling for vandalism, you'll come across an edit that removes most, if not all, of the content from an article or section. It's easy to simply revert, warn, and continue on, but actually, these kind of edits usually require even more attention than the average malicious edit. Accidentally reverting helpful blanking is one of the main pitfalls that newer vandalism patrollers can fall into, so in order to avoid this situation, please read the following pages and answer the questions.

Before you answer these questions, it may be helpful to read WP:BLANK, WP:CR, and this user essay.

How could a blanking edit be helpful?

What are some of the main things to look for in an edit that blanks a lot of text?

Please find three examples of an edit that blanks content, and explain why they are either good or bad.

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}}.

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. Alternately, you can press control-F or command-F and search for "tag:". some edits get tagged for possible vandalism or section blanking.

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

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff	Marker's comment (optional)
1	diff	comment
2	diff	comment
3	diff	comment
4	diff	comment
5	diff	comment
6	diff	comment
7	diff	comment
8	diff	comment
9	diff	comment
10	diff	comment
11	diff	comment
12	diff	comment
13	diff	comment
14	diff	comment
15	diff	comment

Shared IP tagging

There are a number of IP user talk page templates which show helpful information to IP users and those wishing to warn or block them. There is a list of these templates

• {{Shared IP}} - For general shared IP addresses.
• {{ISP}} - A modified version specifically for use with ISP organizations.
• {{Shared IP edu}} - A modified version specifically for use with educational institutions.
• {{Shared IP gov}} - A modified version specifically for use with government agencies.
• {{Shared IP corp}} - A modified version specifically for use with businesses.
• {{Shared IP address (public)}} - A modified version specifically for use with public terminals such as in libraries, etc.
• {{Mobile IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with a mobile device's IP.
• {{Dynamic IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with dynamic IPs.
• {{Static IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with static IPs which may be used by more than one person.

Each of these templates take two parameters, one is the organisation to which the IP address is registered (which can be found out using the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page. The other is for the host name (which is optional) and can also be found out from the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page.

Also, given that different people use the IP address, older messages are sometimes refused so as to not confuse the current user of the IP. Generally any messages for the last one-two months are removed, collapsed, or archived. The templates available for this include:

• {{OW}} for when the messages are deleted from the talk page.
• {{Old IP warnings top}} and {{Old IP warnings bottom}} for collapsing the user warnings and leaving them on the talk page.
• {{Warning archive notice}} for when the messages are archived, and that archiving follows the usually naming sequence (that is, /Archive 1).

NOTE: All of the templates in this section are not substituted (so don't use "subst:").

Tools

Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#Tools includes a list of tools and resources for those who want to fight vandalism with a more systematic and efficient approach.

What you have been doing so far is named the old school approach. As well as manually going through Special:RecentChanges, it includes undos, "last clean version" restores, and manually warning users.

There are a large number of tool which assist users in the fight against vandalism. They range from tools which help filter and detect vandalism to tools which will revert, warn and report users.

Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool

Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool monitors the RSS feed and flags edits with common vandalism terms. It's a very simple tool, but which is useful for not having to go check each and every diff on Recent Changes.

RedWarn

RedWarn is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. It provides many different types of rollback functions (vandalism, blanking, normal, AGF, and more) as well as an easy previous version restore function (for when there are a number of different editors vandalising in a row). Other functions include a full library of user warnings. It also has a function to request page protection to report users to WP:AIV & WP:UAA (which we'll get to later). Please have a read through WP:RedWarn.

Install RedWarn (if haven't already).

Put a link to the diff of where you installed it here: <link here> Here's your first exercise! Answer the following question:

What are two examples of discouraged behavior when using RedWarn?

• <example 1>
• <example 2>

If you have extra time, you can read through the documentation and answer the following questions (they are optional, but will help you learn more about RedWarn):

1. How do you open the quick action menu of a user?

1. How do you change your preferences?

Rollback

See rollback, this user right introduces an easy rollback button (which with one click reverts an editor's contributions. I'll let you know when I think you're ready to apply for the rollback user right.

RTRC

RTRC is an alternative to Special:RecentChanges, and lets you preview the diffs. I suggest enabling the tool in the gadgets section of your preferences.

Huggle

Huggle is a Windows program which parses (orders them on the likelihood of being unconstructive edits and on the editor's recent history) from users not on its whitelist. It allows you to revert vandalism, warn and reports users in one click.

Dealing with difficult users

Occasionally, some vandals will not appreciate your good work and try to harass or troll you. In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, you should not engage with them and leave a note at WP:ANI. If they vandalise your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. Please read WP:DENY.

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 and speedy deletion

Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only an administrator can protect or delete pages; however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion or request protection. If you have Twinkle installed, you can use the Twinkle menu to request page protection or speedy deletion (the RPP or CSD options).

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?

In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?

Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

Speedy deletion examples

In past iterations of this course, students have been asked to go out and actually tag pages for deletion, but with the introduction of WP:ACPERM, the amount of straight vandalism that gets created directly in mainspace has reduced dramatically. As such, I'm going to ask you to say how you would act in a set of hypothetical scenarios. What would you do if you saw the page listed in each scenario? Note that not all scenarios may warrant speedy deletion.

Scenario 1

A user with the username "BobSucks" creates an article called "John Smith" that contains solely the following text:

John Smith is the worst elementary school teacher on the planet.

Scenario 2

A user with the username "GoodTimesLLC" creates a user page with the following text:

'''Good Times LLC''' is an organization dedicated to helping your children get the highest quality education at an affordable price. Visit our website at goodtimes.info and contact us at 123-456-7890.

Scenario 3

A user creates an article titled "Edward Gordon" with the following text:

'''Edward Gordon''' (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 5,000 subscribers on YouTube.

Scenario 4

A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content:

Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz.

(Attribution: Ritchie333 came up with this scenario as a question to an old RfA candidate. I've borrowed his example here. Hint: Try Google searching a few key terms from this short article.)

Scenario 5

A user creates an article that was clearly copied and pasted directly from another website, which states "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom of it. Would your answer be the same if it didn't state "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom?

Scenario 6

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.

Scenario 7

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.

Scenario 8

A new user creates a user page with nothing but the following content:

Jlakjrelekajroi3j192809jowejfldjoifu328ur3pieisgreat

How would this scenario be different if the page was created in a different namespace?

Revision Deletion and Oversight

Please read WP:Revdel and WP:Oversight.

Occasionally, vandalism will be so extreme that it needs to be removed from publicly accessible revision histories - the criteria for these are described in the policies linked above. Revision deletion hides the edit from anyone except admins; oversight provides an even greater level of restriction, with only oversighters able to see the comments. The threshold between the two is quite fine - I've been on the wrong side of it a few times. If you are in doubt as to whether revdel or oversight is required, the best bet is to forward it to the oversight team - whoever reviews it will be able to make the decision and act on it.

If you believe an edit needs to be revision deleted, how would you request that?

If you believe that it's so serious it needs oversight, how would you request that?

Usernames

Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol the User creation log to check for new users with inappropriate usernames. There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed:

• Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, usernames that impersonate other people, or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
• Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.
• Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
• Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.

Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particluar attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.

Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).

DJohnson

LMedicalCentre

Fuqudik

ColesStaff

~~~~

172.295.64.27

Bieberisgay

Emergencies

I hope this never happens, but as you participate in counter-vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible that you may come across a threat of physical harm. In the past, we have had vandals submit death threats in Wikipedia articles, as well as possible suicide notes. The problem is, Wikipedia editors don't have the proper training to evaluate whether these threats are credible in most cases.

Fortunately, there's a guideline for cases like this. Please read Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm carefully and respond to the questions below.

Who should you contact when you encounter a threat of harm on Wikipedia? What details should you include in your message?

What should you do if an edit looks like a threat of harm, but you suspect it may just be an empty threat (i.e. someone joking around)?

Progress test

Congratulations, now have mastered the "basics" so we can move on. Please complete the following progress test, and I'll tell you what's next.

The following 2 scenarios each have 5 questions that are based on WP: VANDAL, WP:3RR, WP: REVERT, WP: BLOCK, WP: GAIV, WP: WARN, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, and WP:UN. Good Luck!

Scenario 1

You encounter an IP vandalising Justin Bieber by adding in statements that he is gay.

• Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?

• Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

• What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?

• The user has now added offensive words to the article 3 times. You have reverted three times already, can you be blocked for violating the three revert rule in this case?

• Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}}?

• What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?

Scenario 2

You see a new account called "Hi999" that has added random letters to one article.

• Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?

• What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?

• Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?

• The user now has a level 3 warning on their talk page. They make a vandal edit, would it be appropriate to report this user to AIV? Why or why not?

• If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?

• Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}}?

• What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?

Scenario 3

You see a new account called "LaptopsInc" which has created a new page called "Laptops Inc" (which only contains the words "Laptops Inc" and a few lines of text copied from the company's website). The user also added "www.laptopsinc.com" on the Laptop article. You research Laptops Inc on Google and find that is a small company.

• Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option would you use?

• If you do revert which warning template would you use?

• Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?

• Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?

• Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?

Results

Your Score:

Rollback

Congratulations now for the next step. The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced vandalism fighters to revert vandalism with the click of one button. Please read WP:Rollback.

Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.

Tools

There a number of tools which assist users with reverting vandalism. I primarily use two of them WP:HUGGLE & WP:STIKI.

Would you like to learn to use either of these tools?

Monitoring period

Congratulations! You have completed the first section of the anti-vandalism course, well done. Now that we've been through everything that you need to know as a vandal patroller, you will be given a 5 day monitoring period. During this time, you are free to revert vandalism (and edit Wikipedia) as you normally do; I will monitor your progress in anti-vandalism. If there are any issues, I will raise them with you and if you have any problems, you are free to ask me. After five days, if I am satisfied with your progress, you will take the final test; passing this will mean you graduate from the CVUA. Good luck!

If you have any problems or trouble along the way please leave a message in this section on my talk page. If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look.

Final Exam

When responding to numbered questions please start your response with "#:" (except where shown otherwise - with **). You don't need to worry about signing your answers.

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (25%)

For each of these examples, please state whether you would call the edit(s) described as vandalism or good faith edit, a reason for that, and how you would deal with the situation (ensuring you answer the questions where applicable).

1. A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article. What would you do if it was their first warning? What about after that.

2. A user adds their signature to an article after one being given a {{Uw-articlesig}} warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?

3. A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?

4. A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?

5. A user removes sourced information from an article, with the summary 'this is wrong'. First time, and after that? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions?

Part 2 (15%)

Which templates warning would give an editor in the following scenarios. If you don't believe a template warning is appropriate outline the steps (for example what you would say) you would take instead.

1. A user blanks Cheesecake.

2. A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.

3. A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.

4. A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.

5. A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

7. A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.

8. A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.

9. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.

10. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.

11. A user blanks your userpage and replaced it with 'I hate this user' (you have had a number of problems with this user in the past).

12. A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.

Part 3 (10%)

What CSD tag you would put on the following articles (The content below is the article's content).

1. Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

3. Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !

4. A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.

5. Fuck Wiki!

What would you do in the following circumstance:

• A user blanks a page they very recently created.

• After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.

Part 4 (10%)

Are the following new (logged in) usernames violations of the username policy? Describe why or why not and what you would do about it (if they are a breach).

1. TheMainStreetBand
2. Poopbubbles
3. Brian's Bot
4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
5. Bobsysop
6. 12:12, 23 June 2012
7. PMiller
8. OfficialJustinBieber

Part 5 (10%)

Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.

1. Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
2. Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
4. Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
5. Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
6. Where and how should an edit war be reported?
7. Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?

Part 6 - Theory in practice (30%)

1. Find and revert three instances of vandalism (by different editors on different pages), and appropriately warn the editor. Please give the diffs the warning below.

2. Find and revert two good faith edits, and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.

3. Correctly report two users (either AIV or ANI). Give the diffs of your report below.

4. Correctly request the protection of two articles; post the diffs of your requests below.

5. Correctly nominate one articles for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nominations below.

6. Correctly report one username as a breache of policy.

Final score

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage
1	5		25
2	11		15
3	8		10
4	8		10
5	7		10
6	18		30
TOTAL	51		100

Completion

Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy, on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction and graduation from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with x% and no issues came up during your 5 day monitoring period; well done.

As a graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox (make sure you replace your enrollee userbox) as well as the graduation message posted on your talk page (this can be treated the same as a barnstar).
{{User CVUA|graduate}}:

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.

{{subst:Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Graduate|1=Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy, on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction and graduation from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with '''''x'''''% and '''''no''''' issues came up during your 5 day monitoring period; well done and congratulations again. Further information on your achievement can be found [[User:Callanecc/CVUA/<!--Student's Username-->|here]]. ~~~~}}

CVU Academy Graduate

Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy, on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction and graduation from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with x% and no issues came up during your 5 day monitoring period; well done and congratulations again. Further information on your progress through the academy can be found at your Academy page. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)