User:ToadetteEdit/CVUA/Me Da Wikipedian
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.
- 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.
- Before you start, you should first read WP:VAND carefully as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.
- Acceptance:I accept and I have already read WP:VAND beforehand Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The start
[edit]Twinkle
[edit]Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.
- Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.
I've had it enabled for nearly 3 weeks now Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Good faith and vandalism
[edit]When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. It is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labelling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.
- Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
- Me Da Wikipedian, you haven't answered yet.
Vandalism is deliberately trying to disrupt or defeat the purpose of the encyclopedia. So like adding curses where they don't belong randomally, or removing good stuff just to cause disruption, moving pages to nonsense titles, etc. Good faith edit would be something helping the encyclopedia, like adding useful information, referenced and properly, or a honest mistake (making an accidental typo, poor grammar, etc.). Sorry, didn't see this earlier
- Satisfactory, but
- 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.
Warning and reporting
[edit]When you use Twinkle to warn a user, you have a number of options to choose from: you can select the kind of warning (for different offences), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4, for increasing severity). Knowing which warning to issue and what level is very important. Further information can be found at WP:WARN and WP:UWUL.
- Please answer the following questions
- Why do we warn users? Because a lot of people genuiely don't know what they are doing it wrong or how to it right
- Satisfactory
- When would a 4im warning be appropriate? If a user vandalizes after a level 4 warning
. 4im warning are not given after the final warning.
Amendment:As the first and only warning for clear and massive disruption. How are the rest of my answers, @ToadetteEdit:?
- ; 4im warnings are reserved for the most egregious examples of vandalism (e.g. intentionally adding inappropriate (porn) images onto articles)
- Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it? Yes, putting subst: before the template like this ~~~~
- What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again? Report to AIV
- Please give examples (using
{{Tlsubst|''name of template''}}) of three different warnings (not different levels of the same warning and excluding the test edit warning levels referred to below), that you might need to use while recent changes patrolling and explain what they are used for. NOTE:So these don't actually do it I have made them invisible comments for vandalism, first time. ~~~~ for a test edit after having been warned that month. ~~~~ for removing content without any/good reason after having been warned twice this month. - Tip: It is best to use the provided code above, so the first would be
{{uw-vand1}}, the second{{uw-test2}}and the third{{uw-delete3}}. Rule number one, it does not necesarily mean that you should increment warnings within a month duration even if the warnings given are scattered in that duration, at least after a couple of days you should start with {{subst:uw-xx1}}, as the IP may be a different user or if a user who had done disruption does it again after a week or two fron the most recent warning given.
However, I would give a satisfactory 
for this answer.
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.
I know that already. Done below. @ToadetteEdit: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2024 (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
Tools
[edit]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
[edit]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.
Rollback
[edit]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
[edit]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.
A note: As far as I can remember, you had a declined application for rollback rights. I think that it is time to apply for it, but it would certainly be declined (again) citing your block and prior poor patrolling; I recommend waiting at least 2-3 weeks later before reapplying it.
@ToadetteEdit: I did (a while ago). "I think that it is time to apply for it" and "it would certainly be declined" and "I recommend waiting at least 2-3 weeks" are a bit contradictory. Should I apply or not (I personally doubt I would get it but...)?
Dealing with difficult users
[edit]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?
To avoid encouraging them.
- How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?
I think its pretty much common sense. Are they are asking a question or trying to be obnoxious? Is there goal to help or get me annoyed/cause disruption?
Protection and speedy deletion
[edit]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
[edit]Please read the protection policy.
- In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
Persistent disruption of some sort by non-autoconfirmed users.
- In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?
Rare edited page with persistent disruption by non-autoconfirmed users. Also, is there a pending changes level 2 or above that I'm not aware of?
- In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
Really constant disruption by Extend confirmed users or a dispute between them if that's necessary
- In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
Something repeatedly recreated as bad page, which will probably not be created as a good one.
- In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
Persistent disruption on the talk page
- Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.
Sorry, I forgot to actually give the diff. Here it is:[7] Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- user notes
all.
Speedy deletion
[edit]Please read WP:CSD.
- In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?
If it is one or more of the following:no useful content, is in violation of policy, clearly not notable, or not wanted/unneccessary
- Please note that by saying "clearly not notable", you are suggesting A7/A9/A11. These criteria deal with significance and not notability; it is one of the most common mistakes.
- 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.
Draft:Thapelo Joseph Mofokeng as spam ([8])
Draft:Melnyky (Chyhyryn Raion) as a copyvio ([9])
- user notes
The first page is unverifiable because 1) you did not warn the user and 2) I could not access the revision because it was deleted altogether; since I am not an admin.
After seeing this, I do not believe you have the full understanding of speedy deletion criterion G1 (and G2). A new user adds "shdydkbdoysgsz" to their sandbox and and you see it, would you tag that page for speedy deletion or not? Why? An IP adds the content "I can edit this" to their talk page (ips can only create talk pages), would you tag it or not? A vandal adds the content "oydssitdlyodydyooxt" to another user's user subpage. Would you tag it or not. If so which criterion would you use and why?
- In the two cases, I would not. I would tag the third as G1 and or G3. @ToadetteEdit: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Usernames
[edit]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
This seems fine. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- , have you forgotten Dwayne Johnson?
- DJohnson could theoretically have nothing to do with him. I would assume it's fine unless edits indiciate otherwise @ToadetteEdit: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- LMedicalCentre
I'd reported as promotional and/or misleading. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- : Policy states that such usernames must not be reported if they haven't made any edits. Should not be reported as misleading.
- Why? It is claiming to LMedicalCentre (which is probably also a shared use issue). Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fuqudik
This name is disruptive, but could be a mistake so I'd leave a message on the talk page about it before going to UAA or something like that. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Should immediately report to UAA without any message.
- ColesStaff
- Should immediately report to UAA without any message.
I would only report if it was making promotional edits as well. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
; this username imply shared usage, which is not allowed per policy.
- Not neccessarily. It could also be the staff (stick) of someone named Cole. @ToadetteEdit: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- ~~~~ Report as that is how you add a signiturate and is confusing/misleading. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16
- 08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- 172.295.64.27 Looks like an IP, misleading, would report. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16
- 08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Bieberisgay
Report to UAA as libel to Bieber. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Progress test
[edit]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
[edit]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?
Likely Vandalism unless a reliable source is cited. Side note, if you want to ask if it is vandalism, maybe dont include vandalising.
- 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?
{{subst:uw-defamatory1|Justin Bieber}}
- 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, per point 7 of WP:3RRNO
{{IPvandal}} as they are an IP
- What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
Vandalism past final warning and Libel, BLP violations.
Scenario 2
[edit]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?
Probably a test edit, as this is pretty common for test edits.
- What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?
{{subst:uw-test1}}
- Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?
Rollback Blue, although realistically I would probably be on SWViewer or Redwarn and use the test edit option.
- 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, outside of rare cases, a level 4 warning should be put on the talk page before making an AIV report.
- If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?
Yes, provided they continue to vandalize.
{{vandal}}
- What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
(Depending on the case) VOA and Vandalism after final warning.
Scenario 3
[edit]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?
Blue Rollback on Twinkle and on SWViewer "Spam: External Links" and on RedWarn
- If you do revert which warning template would you use?
{{subst:uw-advert1|Laptop}}
- Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?
Yes as G11
- Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?
I would add {{subst:uw-coi-username|Laptops Inc}}
- Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?
Implying shared use and promotional/advertising. @ToadetteEdit:
Results
[edit]Your Score: 18/18. Very good. A hint that test edits by new users should be rollbacked using the green button, if you assume that the user could make good edits in the future.
Rollback
[edit]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.
(Normal) rollback can be used for clear vandalism, your own mistakes, edits in your userspace, mass-harmful changes, reverting edits in violations of blocks/bans. And Twinkle/RedWarn/SWViewer/Other Stuff let you use an actual edit summary (not the default one) which is allowed. Sorry for the late response. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Monitoring period
[edit]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.
- Apologizes I've been a bit less active here recently, could it start today instead. Out of curiosity, is other wiki counter-vandalism stuff included? @ToadetteEdit:. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Final Exam
[edit]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%)
[edit]- 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).
- A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article. What would you do if it was their first warning? What about after that.
- Level 1 test edit warning. If they did it again after the warning then level 2 and if they still did it again after that warning then level 3. For the final warning I'd use disruptive editing level 4. Then if they do it again after that warning than AIV.
- , also can be considered vandalism.
- Level 1 test edit warning. If they did it again after the warning then level 2 and if they still did it again after that warning then level 3. For the final warning I'd use disruptive editing level 4. Then if they do it again after that warning than AIV.
- 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?
- Disruptive editing templates (going up the levels each time they did it). After final warning if they do it again then AIV
- , Satisfactory answer.
- Disruptive editing templates (going up the levels each time they did it). After final warning if they do it again then AIV
- 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?
- Revert and use the level 1 NPOV warning. If they keep going then after the warnings that continuing to warn them. If they keep going after a final warning than AIV.
- Revert and use the level 1 NPOV warning. If they keep going then after the warnings that continuing to warn them. If they keep going after a final warning than AIV.
- A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
- Test edit warning level 1. Keep going as above with the last test edit after that.
- Test edit warning level 1. Keep going as above with the last test edit after that.
- 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?
- Warning for UCR (Unexplained Content Removal). If the user has a history of disruptive contributions then I might start out at a higher level warning (and if they just recieved a final warning report them to AIV). An expereienced user wouldn't be treated differently (although I might be less likely to template them the first time, leaving a custom message instead).
- , the summary is insufficient so {{uw-delete1}} still applies. Also in case for experienced users there is an essay: Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars
- Warning for UCR (Unexplained Content Removal). If the user has a history of disruptive contributions then I might start out at a higher level warning (and if they just recieved a final warning report them to AIV). An expereienced user wouldn't be treated differently (although I might be less likely to template them the first time, leaving a custom message instead).
Part 2 (15%)
[edit]- 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.
- A user blanks Cheesecake.
- {{subst:uw-delete1}}
- A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
- Look at the edits to see if they actually are disruptive (they could be part of a quote or otherwise necessary/contructive), and if they are I'd probably use {{subst:uw-attempt1}}
- A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
- {{subst:uw-attempt1}}
- A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
- Probably {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}
- A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
- {{subst:uw-delete1}}
- A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
- {{subst:uw-test1}}
- A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
- {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}
- A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
- {{subst:uw-biog1}} or {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}, probably the first.
- A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
- {{subst:uw-delete4im}}
- A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
- AIV Report (unless they were already reported)
- 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).
- Revert. Depending on the situation, I might template them with {{uw-npa4im}}, discuss it on their talk page, or add it to some relevant noticeboard.
- A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
- {{uw-image1}} or {{uw-test1}}
- all
- all
- {{uw-image1}} or {{uw-test1}}
Part 3 (10%)
[edit]- What CSD tag you would put on the following articles (The content below is the article's content).
- Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
- G11
- Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
- A1, G3
- Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
- A1, G3
- A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
- G3
- Fuck Wiki!
- G3, possibly G10
What would you do in the following circumstance:
- A user blanks a page they very recently created.
- If they said something indicating they want it deleted, then G7. Otherwise I'd ask them on there talk page, depending on the response either reverting or G7 tagging.
- After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
- {{uw-speedy1}} and try to ask them why they are doing what they're doing, and go from there.
- all . Some notes:
- number 5 is a G10 since basically it is an attack page towards the wiki in question.
- all
- {{uw-speedy1}} and try to ask them why they are doing what they're doing, and go from there.
Part 4 (10%)
[edit]- 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).
- TheMainStreetBand Possible Wikipedia:ISU violation (as it could be implying being the Wikipedia account of the whole band), would discuss on their talk page.
- Poopbubbles Not a violation of policy.
- Brian's Bot If it seems like it is indeed a bot (and not an authorized one), then I would report it. If not, then is misleading and should be reported for that.
- sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj I think I'd use {{subst:Uw-username}}
- Bobsysop Misleading, but I think I might use the talk page first as they might not know what sysop is/what it means here.
- 12:12, 23 June 2012 Confusing/Disruptive, would probably report.
- PMiller Discuss with the user, but it is a violation of username policy.
- OfficialJustinBieber Misleading, would report.
Part 5 (10%)
[edit]- Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.
- Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)? For obvious vandalism, no. Otherwise, yes.
- Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported? AIV, with something saying that there are a VOA.
- Where and how should complex abuse be reported? ANI, explaning what they did, a diff (if applicable), and how it was wrong (if applicable). Also you need to leave a message on the talk page if you bring a user to ANI.
- Where and how should blatant username violations be reported? UAA with the reason youre reporting it.
- Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported? ANI with a diff (if applicable). Also you need to leave a message on the talk page if you bring a user to ANI.
- Where and how should an edit war be reported? WP:ANEW with the users, diffs of each reversion, and diff of notification on the talk page about edit warring.
- Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported? BLP/N, but it might be helpful to discuss with the user first.
- all
- all
Part 6 - Theory in practice (30%)
[edit]- 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.