Credit to ItsZippy and Callanecc
Hello, welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. 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. This page will be here for the whole time you are my student and you may answer any of the questions in any time period you wish (You could do a question a week if you wanted :P)
- 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. If you are uncomfortable with answering these questions or do not know the answer, just say skip. If you do not like this style of learning, then tell me :-)! Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.
- If you want, 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.
Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintanence 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.
- A good faith edit would be someone trying to help Wikipedia. They may be new and not know the policies yet, so if it's a common violation of a policy such as copyright, it's probably not vandalism. A vandalism edit would usually be more obviously intentional, and it would also be more disruptive of the page--at least, it seems like it would be in most cases (i.e., something directly unrelated or harmful). AFisch99 (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2012 (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 or my edit history if you wish.
- Good faith
- Not sure this is vandalism, but it's not good! []
- I found this one through your edits page. []
- Then there would be this one: []
- And this one, in case the first one isn't. []
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:UWUL.
- Please answer the following questions
- Why do we warn users?
- When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
- What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
- Please give examples of three different warnings that you might need to use while vandal patrolling and explain what they are used for.
- Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Posts the diffs of those warnings below.
Some edits that seem like vandalism can be test edits. This happens when a new user is experimenting and ends up making accidental unconstructive edits. Generally, these should be treated with good faith, especially if it is their first time, and warned gently.
- Find an edit which could be a test edit and revert it. Warn the user with the most appropriate template, then post the diff below.
If an editor continues to vandalise after a final warning (level 3, or 4im), they can be reported to AIV, where an administrator will consider the report and may block them. This is a final step when warning a user is proving insufficient. There is further advice at WP:GAIV.
- Report 2 users to AIV and post the diffs below. Be sure to follow the guidelines and only report users where necessary; do not report simply for the sake of this task.
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 vandalism. Only an administrator can protect or delete pages; however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion of protection. If you have Twinkle installed, you can use the Twinkle menu to request page protection or speedy deletion (the RPP or CSD options).
Please read WP:PROTECT.
- In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
- In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
- Correctly request the protection of one page (semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.
Please read WP:CSD.
- In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?
- Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons) and post the diff below.
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.
- Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).
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.
You encounter an IP vandalizing Justin Bieber by adding in statements that he is gay.
- Would this be considered vandalism or disruptive editing?
- What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's User talk page?
- The user adds in curse words to the article 3 times. You keep on reverting the edits, but then you reach the 3rd time that you have to revert the edits. Can you be blocked for edit warring in this case?
- Which of the following AIV entries should be made in this case: IP Vandal or Vandal
- Can this user be blocked indef.?
You see a new account called "Hi999" that is adding in random letters to pages and is making test edits.
- Would this be considered vandalism or disruptive editing?
- 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 stops making test edits after getting warned. Would it be appropriate to report this user to AIV?
- If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?
You see a new account called "LaptopsInc" which has created a new page called "Laptops Inc" (which only contained "Laptops Inc"), and added a link to www.laptopsinc.com on the Laptop article. You research Laptops Inc on Google and find that is a very 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 artilce they created with a speedy deletion tag. If so what tag(s) would you place on the article?
- Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with what parameters?
- Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?