User:Polo/CVUA/Chris troutman
Chris troutman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
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.
Reverting
Twinkle
Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE for further information.
Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it. However, I see that you've already enabled it so for a better use that could suits your preferences, you can customize Twinkle at WP:TW/PREF.
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.
- A good faith edit aims to improve an article but is in error in light of existing policies. Vandalism is often an obvious defacement of the article not intended to better the article. The real dividing line between the two is intent. Sometimes well-hidden vandalism can appear to be a good faith edit if the malicious intent isn't clear. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's right! A good faith editor tries to improve to encyclopedia, unfortunately, their edits are causing disruption without their intent. While vandals are those users who expressly cause disruption as it's their purpose.
- 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
- edits on the Catholic Church article, a violation of NPOV but not necessarily vandalism Chris Troutman (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
That's right. 13:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- changing the Commonwealth spelling the article is labeled as being written in "British English" Chris Troutman (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's right. 13:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- unsourced BLP violation the tone of the edit wasn't designed to malign the subject, but it was unsourced and that violates policy. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Vandalism
- obvious vandalism Chris Troutman (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's right. 13:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- obvious vandalism Chris Troutman (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- it's really obvious! 13:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- blanked a user page also a violation of policy (even if the user page is itself a violation of policy) Chris Troutman (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's right. 13:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
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?
- We warn users to let them know that their editing violates policies or guidelines (because they may not know). The right warning for each case should inspire the user to change behavior without chasing them off wiki (unless they're only here to vandalize or promote a business, etc.). Successive warnings (when needed) also helps administrators determine that there has been sufficient warning to act. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
- Repeated, severe violations, like blanking one article after another or making seriously defamatory WP:BLP violations. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?
- Yes, when you place the warning, put "subst:" inside the curly brackets ahead of the template's name. For vandalism warning purposes, templates should always be substituted. Twinkle does this for you automatically. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
- Use WP:AIV to report the issue to an administrator.Chris Troutman (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please give examples (using
{{subst: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.
- {{subst:uw-delete1}} good for first time section blanking. The warning doesn't bite the user but lets them know blanking isn't allowed and it's been reverted.Chris Troutman (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- that's right. I like the way you interpret it. Because some users think that it is bitey and they sometimes feel that someone is harassing them through these kinds of warnings because they thought that their edits are right. Unfortunately, they are wrong because this is used just to notify them that something isn't right. 10:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- {{subst:Uw-biog2}} Many (perhaps too many) Wikipedia articles are about celebrities and sometimes there are unreferenced additions (good or bad). This is a good warning for that instance.Chris Troutman (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- that right! In most cases, if a BLP article is often edited by multiple users adding unsupported statements, it may be appropriate to request a PC protection at WP:RPP. 10:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- {{subst:Uw-speedy4}} On occasion you'll have an editor who creates an article as a pet project. The article subject may fail WP:NOTE or other WP:CSD guidance and the community decides to delete the article. The editor in question may fight the deletion by simply removing the banner. After repeated warnings, this is the warning to use.Chris Troutman (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- this is right but as myself, a New Page Patroller, removal of CSD tags happens almost occasionally. Still, this may happen. 10:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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
Note I still need at least 2 reports at AIV. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I've been hunting for a repeat vandal and it's been hard to find, especially with all these bots and editors with STiki beating me to the punch.Chris Troutman (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Two reports then you will proceed to the next level... Yeah... that's really tough when you've already found a revision to revert then, all of a sudden, someone with STiki already reverted it. Well, there are three basic qualifications and you must meet either. I see that your edits are >1000 so the only way for you to use STiki is asking a very special permission/request. You can ask to acquire to use STiki at Wikipedia talk:STiki. Your recent contributions are impressive because you have already reverted multiple unnecessary revisions. Thanks ;) Mediran (t • c) 12:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- May I use WP:AIV reports I previously filed? The way I read the assignment, you only wanted fresh revisions and AIV reports. I've posted to AIV before, if that will qualify me for this task. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Two reports then you will proceed to the next level... Yeah... that's really tough when you've already found a revision to revert then, all of a sudden, someone with STiki already reverted it. Well, there are three basic qualifications and you must meet either. I see that your edits are >1000 so the only way for you to use STiki is asking a very special permission/request. You can ask to acquire to use STiki at Wikipedia talk:STiki. Your recent contributions are impressive because you have already reverted multiple unnecessary revisions. Thanks ;) Mediran (t • c) 12:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow, that's very good! I didn't expect that you will complete all 15 because I was expecting that you will only add two reports but you didn't. You've added 3 more reverts. Actually, I only need two reports to get you to the next task but well done! Mediran (t • c) 06:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
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 throughSpecial: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.
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).
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.
STiki
STiki consists of (1) a component that listens to the RecentChanges feed and scores edits on their possibility of being uncontructive; and (2) An application which scans through the most recent revisions on pages and scores the possibility of them being uncontructive.
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?
- We don't want to become an internet meme. Getting upset at trolls gives them what they want and will only encourage them to do more. Besides, engaging with trolls may make yourself or Wikipedia look bad in the eyes of third-persons. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?
- Usually a troll will either pester, provoke, or insult. Good faith editors will typically break off after you've worked out a resolution or take their complaint to the appropriate WP page. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, Chris, sorry for not attending this course yesterday because I was busy doing SpongeBob-related works. I'm really sorry. BTW, your next task will revolve about the protection of pages and deletion of articles that's against our policies. Thanks! :) Mediran (t • c) 01:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Protection and speedy deletion
Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only anadministrator 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?
- When the page receives a lot of IP vandalism. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- that's right! 02:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?
- To protect less-frequently visited pages from vandalism or WP:BLP violations, where reviewers will be able to approve or dis-approve changes from IPs and new users. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- that's right! 02:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
- Instances where registered users engage in persistent edit-warring. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- that's right! 02:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
- When, after a page has been deleted, users are continually re-creating it. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's right! Especially those pages that are disruptive or spams. 02:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
- When it experiences a high level of vandalism. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's right! 02:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&diff=553258097&oldid=553250749 Chris Troutman (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- 05:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.
- In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?
- When the substantive author requests deletion or the page itself has no value. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's right! When it has no 'value.' 02:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons - they can be for any of the criteria) and post the diff andthe criteria you requested it be deleted under below.
- I've nominated this for deletion under G11, advertising. Letmesync is promotional info about software (also unreferenced, a stub, and an orphan) created by User:Letmesync whose only two edits are the aformentioned article and their user page with content identical to the article. (I've warned the user about WP:COI as well.) Chris Troutman (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- 02:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- The article's title is a misspelling of an article that already exists (as a redirect). If there were meaningful content on the new article, I would've nominated the redirect for deletion in order to move this article to the correct location. As the content of this article is unreferenced and a stub, it makes more sense to simply delete the new article. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Shall I hunt for another CSD nom or change the nomination on this one? Chris Troutman (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- No need, it was already deleted. 05:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- No need, it was already deleted.
- Shall I hunt for another CSD nom or change the nomination on this one? Chris Troutman (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Usernames
Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol theUser 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 particular 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
- looks innocuous. Unless this is an attempt to impersonate someone else, no action is needed. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- not problematic per se. If the edit history shows ties with the user name, hit the talk page with the conflict of interest warning. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- perhaps this is meant to be offensive, perhaps not. I would assume good faith and move on. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- creates perception of shared account per WP:ISU. Report to WP:RFCN. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- signature format is forbidden; report to WP:UAA. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Usernames that look like IPs are forbidden; Report to UAA. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Offensive. Report to UAA. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- looks fine; no action needed. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Trolling. Report to UAA. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like promotional account. Based on edit history of pages related to user name, report to WP:COIN. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
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?
- Vandalism. For it to be good faith, there would have to be reputable sources establishing that fact. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?
- WP:BLP and WP:VANDAL Chris Troutman (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?
- If this is the only edit from the user in question, Template:uw-vandalism2 Chris Troutman (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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?
- No, obvious vandalism is an exception for WP:3RR Chris Troutman (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or Template:Vandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)?
- IPvandal, since the user is an IP. I use Twinkle so it selects the IP template for IP accounts automatically. The significant difference is that the "Vandal" template also contains the "Nuke" link which could be useful if the user making a lot of vandalism edits. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
- "repeat vandal" with at least one link to the pages being vandalized. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
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?
- Vandalism (test edit). Good faith assumes the user thought their edits would be helpful. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?
- Template:Uw-test2 Chris Troutman (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?
- Rollback blue. I don't want to paint a test edit as vandalism but it's not good faith, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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?
- No. Per WP:GAIV, sufficient warning means that another vandal edit earns a "4" or "4im" before being reported. To accomplish the previous parts of this training, I sat on vandals with a level 4 warning just waiting for them to violate one more time. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?
- WP:INDEF indicates that could happen, but I imagine it's unlikely since a user would have to be a vandalism-only account to earn that prohibition. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or Template:Vandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)?
- Template:Vandal Chris Troutman (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
- "repeated vandalism" Chris Troutman (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
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?
- Rollback red (vandalism) Chris Troutman (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you do revert which warning template would you use?
- Template:uw-advert1 Chris Troutman (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?
- Yes, Template:db-spam under criteria WP:CSD#G11. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?
- Instructions on UAA indicate not to use Template:uw-username or Template:uw-coi-username but to simply report them to UAA. The logic is that those templates are only meant to start a discussion in questionable cases. "LaptopsInc" is a slam-dunk case. So, I wouldn't post anything to the talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?
- Yes. It's a promotional name and the user made promotional edits. I don't see any future for this user, although perhaps they would abandon their account if told what the policy is. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Results
Your Score: 18/18 Mediran (t • c) 07:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
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.
- Rollback can be used to stop a torrent of vandalism or clean up the rampage of a now-banned user. It may not be used to revert a good faith edit. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
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 (Huggle/STiki)?
- Yes, both. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Discuss the three requirements for a user to access STiki.
- Rollback permissions OR
- 1000 edits in the article namespace OR
- Special permission Chris Troutman (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
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 satisfued 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. Mediran (t • c) 03:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
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 an edit is vandalism or good faith (please also include a brief reason).
Marks: 5
Marks obtained: 5
- A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article.
- Good faith, looks like an editing test.
- that's right. But it can also be reverted as vandalism.
- Good faith, looks like an editing test.
- A user adds their signature over and over into an article.
- Good faith. Some editors misunderstand the purpose of user signatures.
- that's right!
- Good faith. Some editors misunderstand the purpose of user signatures.
- A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article.
- Vandalism. I see IPs do this all the time and it's never been an editing test.
- that's right!
- Vandalism. I see IPs do this all the time and it's never been an editing test.
- A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article.
- Good faith. Looks like an editing test.
- that's right!
- Good faith. Looks like an editing test.
- A user removes sources information from an article, with the summary 'this is wrong'.
- It depends, but I would lean towards good faith. Removing content without explanation is typically considered vandalism. If the information removed was obviously not-germane, the removal might be understandable. Ultimately the user wants to better the wiki although they went about it the wrong way.
- that's right!
- It depends, but I would lean towards good faith. Removing content without explanation is typically considered vandalism. If the information removed was obviously not-germane, the removal might be understandable. Ultimately the user wants to better the wiki although they went about it the wrong way.
Part 2 (15%)
- What type of warning you would give an editor in the following scenarios. If you don't believe a warning is appropriate outline what you would do instead (make sure you state all the actions you would take).
Marks: 11
Marks obtained: 11
- A user blanks Cheesecake.
- {{uw-delete2}}
- that's right!
- {{uw-delete2}}
- A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
- {{uw-attempt}}
- that's right!
- {{uw-attempt}}
- A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
- {{uw-efsummary}} would be the template to use but I don't think this merits a warning. If it's only in the edit summary it doesn't detract from the article and it may have been a mistake. I'm not convinced this is "edit summary vandalism." Unless the editor's history indicates further vandalism, I would let it go.
- That's right.
- {{uw-efsummary}} would be the template to use but I don't think this merits a warning. If it's only in the edit summary it doesn't detract from the article and it may have been a mistake. I'm not convinced this is "edit summary vandalism." Unless the editor's history indicates further vandalism, I would let it go.
- A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
- {{uw-vandalism2}}
- that is right
- {{uw-vandalism2}}
- A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
- {{uw-delete1}}
- {{uw-delete1}}
- A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
- {{uw-vandalism1}}
- right!
- {{uw-vandalism1}}
- A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
- {{uw-vandalism1}}
- right!
- {{uw-vandalism1}}
- A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
- {{uw-biog2}}
- that's right.
- {{uw-biog2}}
- A user blanks Personal computer for a fifth time.
- {{uw-delete4im}}
- right!
- {{uw-delete4im}}
- 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).
- A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
- {{uw-image1}}
- right!
- {{uw-image1}}
Part 3 (10%)
- What CSD tag you would put on the following articles (The content below is the article's content).
Marks: 7
Marks obtained: 7
- Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
- {{db-spam}}
- {{db-spam}}
- Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
- {{db-g3}}
- {{db-g3}}
- Joe Nathan is the biggest idiot!
- {{db-attack}}
- {{db-attack}}
- A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
- {{db-hoax}}
- {{db-hoax}}
- Fuck Wiki!
- {{db-attackorg}}
- {{db-attackorg}}
What would you do in the following circumstance:
- A user blanks a page they very recently created.
- Tag the page with {{db-g7}} since the author apparently wants to delete it
- Tag the page with {{db-g7}} since the author apparently wants to delete it
- After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
- undo the removal of the CSD template
- add {{uw-speedy1}} to the user's talk page
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).
Marks: 8
Marks obtained: 8
- TheMainStreetBand
- Poopbubbles
- Offensive. Report to WP:UAA
- Offensive. Report to WP:UAA
- Brian's Bot
- Violation; only bots can have names with the word "bot." Report to UAA.
- Violation; only bots can have names with the word "bot." Report to UAA.
- sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
- Although this user name is confusing, it's not in violation of the username policy. I would post to WP:RFCN to see if there's compelling reason to ban this user name.
- Although this user name is confusing, it's not in violation of the username policy. I would post to WP:RFCN to see if there's compelling reason to ban this user name.
- Bobsysop
- Violation; usernames cannot use the word "sysop" because it makes a claim of authority. Report to UAA.
- Violation; usernames cannot use the word "sysop" because it makes a claim of authority. Report to UAA.
- 12:12, 23 June 2012
- Violation; timestamps are not allowed as usernames. Report to UAA.
- Violation; timestamps are not allowed as usernames. Report to UAA.
- PMiller
- Unless this is an attempt to masquerade as someone real, there's no violation.
- Unless this is an attempt to masquerade as someone real, there's no violation.
- OfficialJustinBieber
- Violation; usernames cannot claim to be official nor can they represent a collective, nor can they be promotional. Report to WP:COIN.
- this can also be reported at UAA
- Violation; usernames cannot claim to be official nor can they represent a collective, nor can they be promotional. Report to WP:COIN.
Part 5 (10%)
- Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.
Marks: 7
Marks obtained: 7
- Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
- Reverting vandalism is a specific exception to WP:3RR. If there is a need to keep reverting, it makes more sense to warn the offender each time and eventually get them blocked.
- Reverting vandalism is a specific exception to WP:3RR. If there is a need to keep reverting, it makes more sense to warn the offender each time and eventually get them blocked.
- Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
- Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
- WP:ANI is the one-stop shop.
- that is right!!
- WP:ANI is the one-stop shop.
- Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
- Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
- Where and how should an edit war be reported?
- WP:AN3. List the pages and diffs that depict the edit war.
- right!
- WP:AN3. List the pages and diffs that depict the edit war.
- Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies is the place to start if it's not clear what course should be taken. Ultimately WP:BLPN can resolve the matter.
- right!
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies is the place to start if it's not clear what course should be taken. Ultimately WP:BLPN can resolve the matter.
Part 6 - Theory in practice (30%)
Marks: 16
Marks obtained: 16
- 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.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:14.200.144.4&diff=prev&oldid=555740793
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:207.38.224.96&diff=prev&oldid=555737922
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:111.221.7.77&diff=prev&oldid=555737813
- 2. Find and revert two good faith edits, and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kid75617&oldid=555308796 User:Kid75617 has been making sympathetic edits to the Jeffrey Carney article, which I'm trying to resolve.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.165.172.203&oldid=556034942 Someone else reverted the test edit, but I was able to get emplace the talk page message.
- 3. Correctly report two users (either AIV or ANI). Give the diffs of your report below.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=555995433
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=556022641&oldid=556021498
- 4. Correctly request the protection of two articles; post the diffs of your requests below.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=555738416
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&diff=556023708&oldid=556022517
- 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 weighing | Your percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 25 |
| 2 | 11 | 11 | 15 | 15 |
| 3 | 7 | 7 | 10 | 7 |
| 4 | 8 | 8 | 10 | 10 |
| 5 | 7 | 7 | 10 | 10 |
| 6 | 16 | 16 | 30 | 30 |
| TOTAL | 54 | 54 | 100 | 100 |
Graduate
Congratulations Chris troutman on your successful completion of this CVUA programme from the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with 100% and no issues came up during your 5 day monitoring period as well as in the rest of the course. Well done. Mediran (t • c) 02:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
As a CVU graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox.
{{User CVUA|graduate}}:
 | This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate. |