User:Illusion Flame/CVUA/Tasks

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.

This course is designed to last, in total, about 2-3 weeks. This may be more or less, depending on your level of experience prior to the training.

The start

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.

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

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?

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 {{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.

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. 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.

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	Illusion Flame's Comment
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

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.

Twinkle

The first tool I want to mention is Twinkle, it's a very useful and I strongly suggest you enable it (in the Gadgets section of your preferences). It provides three types of rollback functions (vandalism, normal and AGF) 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 speedy deletion functions, and user warnings. It also has a function to propose and nominate pages for deletion, to request page protection to report users to WP:AIV & WP:UAA (which we'll get to later). You already have this, so just read what it can do

UltraViolet/RedWarn

UltraViolet/RedWarn is similar to Twinkle in nature. It allows you to revert edits and restore revisions with custom edit summaries. It also gives convenient links to warn and report users. RedWarn is the old version of UltraViolet, which is currently in beta. Please install RedWarn and let me know below:

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? Provide example diffs (don’t have to be yours) if possible.

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 protected?

In what circumstances should a page be extended confirmed 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, extended confirmed, 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, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?

Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons - they can be for any of the criteria) and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below.

What speedy deletion criteria do you think is the most important and why? (There are no wrong answers

)

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

Practice

Congratulations, now have mastered the "basics" so we can move on. Please complete the following practice test, to help prepare for the final exam.

The following 3 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.

I will advise you further about requesting rollback. If approved follow below, you can use the following tools

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.

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.

AntiVandal

AntiVandal is a web-based counter-vandalism tool. It is similar to Huggle in interface and usage, though it is a more lightweight version. After the script is installed, beside your preferences button, there will now be a link which says "AntiVandal". Clicking this will activate the script. It allows you to warn and revert edits in one click. It also allows you to quickly report users to WP:AIV and WP:UAA.

SWViewer

SWViewer (direct link) is a user-friendly webapp that is used to detect and revert vandalism, spam, and other types of unconstructive edits made at various Wikimedia projects. With a simple and intuitive UI, you can monitor changes in real-time. In doing so, it provides a lot of features, such as the ability to rollback edits, warn users, tag pages with speedy deletion, and edit source on the page.

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 on my talk page. If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look. Once I email you the final exam, I will no longer be able to answer questions for you, so ask them now.

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. I have emailed you the first part of the test. It will feel challenging, and may take a while. Be sure you click both submit buttons when filling out the form. Please begin at your nearest convenience.

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 - Theory/knowledge test (50%)

Test will be emailed to you when you’re ready for it. It will be in Google Form format.

Part 2 - Theory/knowledge in practice (50%)

1. Find and revert 10 instances of vandalism (by different editors on different pages), and appropriately warn the editor. Please give the diffs of the revert and the warning below.

1. Diff: Warning:
2. Diff: Warning:
3. Diff: Warning:
4. Diff: Warning:
5. Diff: Warning:
6. Diff: Warning:
7. Diff: Warning:
8. Diff: Warning:
9. Diff: Warning:
10. Diff: Warning:

2. Find and revert 3 good faith edits, and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your revert and warn/welcome below.

1. Diff: Warning:
2. Diff: Warning:
3. Diff: Warning:

3. Correctly report 4 users to AIV. 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 3 pages (at least 1 article) for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nominations below.

6. Correctly report 3 usernames as a breach of policy.

Final score

Part	Total available	Your score
1	50	Pending
2	50	Pending
TOTAL	100	Pending

Passage rate: %

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.