User:Omni Flames/CVUA/ThePlatypusOfDoom
Hello, and welcome to your very own counter-vandalism academy page! We'll be using this page for everything related to your training. That means I'll be posting questions, information, and tests here, but don't worry, I'll teach you everything :).
This page will be built-up over your time here at the academy, and I'll add new sections as we go along. If I post something here, please reply directly below my message. If something is in bold it means I want you to reply directly underneath it. Please do so.
In some exercises I will ask you to provide "diffs". See Help:Diffs for how to do this.
Tools[edit]
Before we start, I wanted to show you some useful tools for counter-vandalism work which can be used by any editor. You can use all of these, none of these, or some of these. I don't mind, these links are just for your convenience. You may have already installed some of these in the past.
Twinkle[edit]
Twinkle is a very popular gadget which is helpful for a variety of tasks. To install it, go here and tick the box that says Twinkle. Then scroll down to the bottom of the page and click "save". When you refresh the page, a "TW" tab will be available on every page, next to the "More" tab. Scrolling over the TW tab will show a list of modules you can use on the particular page. Twinkle has a large number of useful modules, including but not limited to, one which can be used to warn users, one which can be used to request page protection, one which can be used to suggest a page is deleted, and many many more helpful features. It also adds a non-admin "rollback" feature on all diff pages. I highly suggest you enable Twinkle, as it's incredibly useful and poses no risk of harming your account.
Lupin's Anti-vandal tool[edit]
Lupin's Anti-vandal tool is extremely helpful for monitoring recent changes in real time. To install it, simply add the following to your common.js.
importScript('User:Lupin/recent2.js');
Refresh the page and you'll find 5 new links on your toolbar (on the left side of the page, underneath "interaction"). These links can be used to better monitor recent changes for possible vandalism.
IRC channels[edit]
IRC is an internet chat program. There are several channels on IRC that can be used to monitor vandalism. #cvn-wp-en connect is probably the most useful. Visit Wikipedia:IRC/Tutorial for information on how to connect to channels.
[edit]
Navigation popups allow you to hover over links and see a brief preview of the page being linked to. One feature of navigation popups is that when you're at recent changes and hover over "diff" links, you'll have the ability to revert the most recent edit, useful for undoing vandalism. To install navigation popups, go here and tick the box that says Navigation popups. Then scroll down to the bottom of the page and click "save". Refresh the page and navigation popups will be enabled.
Now that you've read these, reply below with which scripts you installed/what you signed up for. I don't mind how many you installed, or if you installed none, it's just so I know and can set tasks using those scripts. Also note that there are many more advanced scripts out there, but they'll only be available to you when you have more experience.
Response[edit]
I installed Twinkle and Lupin's anti-vandal tool. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: Great! I've added a task below. Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Vandalism vs Good Faith[edit]
Please read WP:VAND, and note the different types of vandalism. Take a look at WP:VANDNOT to see what isn't vandalism. Then read WP:GF and answer the following questions.
What is the different between vandalism and a good faith edit?
Why is it important to assume good faith?
Please provide 3 diffs of a user vandalizing below. You may choose to revert it if you wish. Note that if it's already reverted, it doesn't matter, you can still provide it.
Please provide 3 diffs of an edit which was made in good faith, but was unhelpful. The same rules apply as with the vandalism edits.
Firstly, The difference is between vandalism and good faith is that vandalism is deliberately trying to harm the encyclopedia, while good faith is just a mistake. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
It is important to assume good faith because edit wars can be needlessly started, and it may deter new editors from working in the encyclopedia. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Vandalism VS. Good Faith:
Vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Llano_Uplift&type=revision&diff=718510651&oldid=704842979
Omni Flames let's talk about it 00:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Good Faith: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_policies_of_American_labor_unions&diff=718510707&oldid=700831346 Author just messed up on this one.
I would almost go so far as to call this one vandalism. Omni Flames let's talk about it 00:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Area_52&type=revision&diff=718510899&oldid=705509289
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 00:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Blatant Vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GLAAD&diff=718334490&oldid=712082160
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 00:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Good Faith: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethiopian_Highlands&diff=prev&oldid=252473496
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 00:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Good Faith: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italian_beef&diff=718513222&oldid=717682965
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 00:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Good Faith AFD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_Negotiations_Bulletin#Earth_Negotiations_Bulletin
- Just because an AFD was closed as keep doesn't mean the nom was wrong for nominating it. Generally I was looking for edits that would need reversion, and this isn't one of them. Omni Flames let's talk about it 00:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: Marked it and added next assignment. Omni Flames let's talk about it 00:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
User Warnings[edit]
Read WP:WARN and WP:UWUL. In short, user warnings are templates used to notify users that their edits have been problematic. Once you've read and thoroughly reviewed those pages, please answer the following questions.
Why and when should warnings be used?
Should warnings be substituted? If so, how would you do this?
When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
If a user who has already received a 4/4im level template vandalizes again, what would you do?
Please give examples of three warnings that you might need to use while vandal patrolling and explain what they are used for. You can use {{Tlsubst|name of template}} to do this.
Warnings should be used to notify vandals that what they are doing is not allowed, and warn them of being blocked. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:SUBST should always be used, due to warnings being for the specific user. Just put {{subst:Pagename} instead of the general warnings. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
A 4im warning is used when the vandalism is severe, and contains deliberately offensive material or something on a similar level of severity. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
If a user who has received a 4/4im warning continues to vandalize, report the vandal to WP:AIV. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
{{subst:uw-test1} should be used for newcomers, if they seem to be making test edits, with no malicious intent. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
{{subst:uw-error3} Is used if someone is inserting false information, but it shouldn't be used for the first warning. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
{{subst:uw-vandalism1} is used if someone makes a first or second vandalism edit. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
{{subst:uw-vandalism4im} is used for severe acts of vandalism, for example racist material. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: Looking good. Your next task is below. Omni Flames let's talk about it 10:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Theory in practice[edit]
- 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
[edit]
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:").
Nothing to do in this assignment, except for reading it. Once you've seen it let me know below.
@Omni Flames: @Omni Flames: I have read this. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: Great! See below... Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
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?
We deny recognition to trolls and vandals because it doesn't do any good "feeding" them. Recognizing them will just encourage them to vandalize more. This is the reason that WP:RBI exists. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?
A good faith user doesn't try to insult, has a good editing history with very little trolling. A troll will try to annoy you or just be a pain, and just be obnoxious in general. They will probably not be as polite, and may have a history of trolling. They will only present illogical arguments, not fairly reasonable ones. If you ignore them, they will still troll you. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@Omni Flames: I have completed this. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
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?
A page should be semi-protected if IP's and new editor's have been vandalizing the article fairly frequently. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 10:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?
Pending changes protection level 1 should be used if there is frequent IP and new editor vandalism, but there are some IP's that are contributing positively to the article, also used in potential WP:COPYVIO situations. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 2 protected?
Pending changes level 2 should not be used, as community consensus is against it.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
A page should be fully protected if there is constant, extreme vandalism, or if it is a very widely viewed page, like the main page. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
A page should be salted if a user keeps trying to create it, and the topic is non-notable.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
A talk page should be semi-protected (like mine is now) when a IP or new user keeps vandalizing and posting insults on the talk page, and they will pop up again if blocked.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.
If it's okay to do ones that I have filed in the past, I did this one a couple days ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&type=revision&diff=721911763&oldid=721909967 , was pending-changes protected. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
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?
A page should be speedy deleted if it meets the speedy deletion criteria.
- Pretty much all I'm looking for. Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laurie_Langford&type=revision&diff=722418698&oldid=722418426 -Copyright infringement, promotion.
- Obiously I can't see deleted pages, but I'll assume you were correct based on the deletion log. Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupesh_choubey&type=revision&diff=723844616&oldid=723844536 - Article about person that does not credibly indicate notability ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Just one thing. You mentioned notability. Speedy deletion has nothing to do with notability, rather it's whether the page makes a credible claim of significance, a much lower standard. We have other deletion processes for whether or not the article is notable. Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: Marked it. Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:26, 5 June 2016 (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.
- For more information, read the username policy.
- Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).
- DJohnson Probably wouldn't report, as is most likely the person's name.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 11:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- LMedicalCentre report, as it is a promotional username.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 11:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Fuqudik Wouldn't report, as I don't see how this name violates the username policy.
- This username could possibly be interpreted as an offensive username, if you try pronouncing it out loud perhaps you'll see what I mean. Personally, I would watch the user's edits and see if they're trolling.
- Phil from Coles Wouldn't report, as the person's name and where he lives.
- Perhaps I should have mentioned that "Coles" is a brand name. Neverthless, usernames like this are allows.
- ~~~~ report, for possibly being a disruptive username.
- I would watch the user's edits and talk to them about possibly changing their username.
- 172'295'64'27 Report, as it could be mistaken for an IP address.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 11:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Bieberisgay report as offensive and disruptive.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 11:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- ImASysop report, as could be mistaken for an administrator.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 11:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Jumbo Whales report, as offensive.
- Not "offensive", in my opinion, but definitely misleading and trollish. Omni Flames let's talk about it 11:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- nSkdjsnDLo834e784%76 Wouldn't report, as some people do have names of random letter strings.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 11:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- edit Wouldn't report, unless the user showed trolling behavior.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 11:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: Well done. I've added a progress test below. Omni Flames let's talk about it 11:57, 6 June 2016 (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 8 scenarios each have 2-5 questions that are based on WP: VANDAL, WP:3RR, WP: REVERT, WP: BLOCK, WP: GAIV, WP: WARN, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, WP:PP 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? I would consider this vandalism, as it is meant to insult, not stating as a fact.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching? WP:VAND, WP:BLP.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page? Level 2 warning for vandalism.
This is a tough one. However, in this case, it would be more appropriate to give the editor a 4im warning. This edit could be revision deleted under WP:CRD, as a violation of the BLP policy, and so this is severe enough to go straight to level 4. Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:14, 7 June 2016 (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, because it is obviously vandalism.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}}? IPvandal, as the vandal is an IP.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor? Vandalism after final warning, (if the IP's edits were all unconstructive) vandalism only account.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
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? I would assume good faith for now, but another edit would be vandalism.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page? Uw-test1
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)? Green, as it appears to be a test.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (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? Unless the vandalism was worthy of skipping a level, no.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.? No, because Indefs are not good for a first-time offense.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}}? tl|vandal, as it is not an IP
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor? Vandalism-only account, vandalism after final warning.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
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? Yes, I would use rollback-blue, as it isn't good faith editing.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you do revert which warning template would you use? I would use UW-Promo
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (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, under G11
- Notice that I said "a few lines of text copied from the company's website" that means that this would also be a copyright infringement, and so G12 would apply. G11 would not necessarily apply here, as the lines of copied text may not be outright promotional (all though they most likely would be).
- Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters? Yes, uw-username1
- Note that it's actually {{Uw-username}}, but you've got the idea. Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate? Yes, as it is promotional.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Scenario 4[edit]
You come across an account named "JohnIsAFag". You find that it's created the page "John Simmonds", which reads "John Simmonds is a guy born in 1991. He is still alive today, unfortunately, because he is an idiot. ahsjjdshhsd".
- Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article? Yes, under G10
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters? Yes, a uw-username and a uw-derogatory,
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate? Yes, as it is disruptive an offensive.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Scenario 5[edit]
A user creates his userpage with the content "wsjhbw,e3y4y3q7463t43". This is the user's first and only edit to date.
- Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the page? No, as it may just be a test, I'll AGF for now.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Scenario 6[edit]
You come across a page on which three different IPs are performing some blatant vandalism. In total, there have been 14 vandalism edits in the past 2 days. 1 of the IPs is blocked, the other two are not. The most recent vandalism edit was 2 hours ago.
- Do you request protection of the page? Yes.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- If so, for how long, and at what level? semi-protection for a day or so.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Scenario 7[edit]
The page Great Britain is being vandalized by 2 IPs. Neither have been blocked, but the two have made a total of 7 vandalism edits in the 15 hours. Meanwhile, there's another IP making constructive edits to the page, and even reverting the other IPs.
- Do you request protection of the page? Yes
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- If so, for how long, and at what level? Pending changes protection for 3 days.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Scenario 8[edit]
A page was recently repeatedly vandalized by a single non-autoconfirmed editor. The user made over 60 vandalism edits in under 20 minutes, but was them promptly blocked. No other vandalism has taken place in the past month.
- Do you request protection of the page? No.
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- If so, for how long, and at what level?
- Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Results[edit]
Your Score: 26/28
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: Well done! There were some very minor issues here and there, but overall I was very impressed by your answers. Anyway, I've added a small task below. Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
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.
You can use rollback to revert vandalism, revert yourself, revert edits in your user space, revert edits by banned users, and to revert widespread edits that are judged unhelpful to Wikipedia. You can't use rollback for anything that doesn't meet these categories, such as edits that you disagree with. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC) @Omni Flames: ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: Looks good. Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Based on your answers to the questions on this page and your score on the progress test, I feel that you are now ready for the "rollback" user right. If you're interested, I recommend that you apply at WP:PERM/R. Remember that rollback is not a trophy or an award, it's a tool which allows vandalism to be reverted more quickly. You should only use it during one of the situations listed at Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback, and if you misuse it, you risk having rollback permissions revoked. Please comment below once your request has been processed by an administrator (of course, if you don't want rollback, that's perfectly fine too, just let me know).
I now have the rollback user right. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@Omni Flames: ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: Okay, great. Omni Flames (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Tools[edit]
There a number of tools which assist users with reverting vandalism. I primarily use two of them WP:HUGGLE & WP:STIKI. These tools can only be used by those with the "rollback" user right.
Huggle[edit]
Huggle is a countervandalism tool which, as well as having options for reverting and warning, has features such as the ability to tag a page for speedy deletion and blocking users (the latter of which can only be used by admins). It also contains a way of checking page history and the user's talk page. Some of the useful features in Huggle include the ability to setup shortcuts, and use custom edit summaries.
STiki[edit]
STiki is another popular tool for fighting vandalism. It contains fewer options than Huggle but it has an easy-to-use layout which allows for quick reverting. It also has options for good faith reverts and sending 4im level warnings. It's hit rate is around 25%-30%.
- Would you like to learn to use either of these tools?
I would like to learn how to use Huggle and STiki. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@Omni Flames: ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: Okay, sure. Huggle appears to be currently unworking for me at the moment, but I'll try to teach you how to use it when it is. Omni Flames (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
@Omni Flames: I can't use STiki, because it runs on Java and the computer that I have doesn't have Java. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: Ah, okay. Well here's a guide for Huggle, let me know when you've read it.
- You can start by downloading Huggle here. Choose the version that's right for your computer. Open the file you download and you should be able to install it from there. Once you have done that, open Huggle. A small window should come up. At the top of it there should be two options, "OAuth" and "Login". Click login as OAuth is currently broken. From there, type in your username and password. Set the project as enwiki and the language as English. You can also click the "projects" button at the bottom, to select other WMF projects you also want to use Huggle on. Once you're happy, click login. A screen will pop up and load Huggle.
- If you've got this far, Huggle should now be working. The first thing you'll probably notice is the queue on the left. This contains edits which are awaiting review. You can click on each one to view it. Once you've got one of the edits up, you can classify it using the buttons in the top toolbar. The ones that you'll probably use the most are the green tick, which accepts the edit, and the button to the left of it, which reverts it and warns the user. If you look at this button, you'll see there's an arrow next to it. This can be used to revert and warn for a specific reason, such as page blanking.
- There are other options on the top toolbar as well, such as requesting speedy deletion of a page. I'm not going to explain all these here as it would take too long, try taking a look at Mw:Huggle/Manual. Omni Flames (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2016 (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.
@Omni Flames: The five days are up. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Okay! I'm happy to tell you that I didn't find any issues with your counter-vandalism work over the last five days. I've added the final test below. Omni Flames (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2016 (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.
- I would put a uw-test1 warning on their page, assume good faith, and after that, I would assume vandalism, and continue templating with harsher warnings.
- 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?
- I might assume vandalism, depending on the situation, I would put a disruptive editing level 1 warning, and escalate the warnings.
- 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?
- I would put a test level 1 warning, if this was their first edit, I would AGF. If they did it again, I would escalate the warnings accordingly.
- A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
- I would assume good faith, and leave a friendly message on the user's talk page. After that, I would template, and escalate the templates accordingly.
- A user removes sources 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?
- If the user has positive contributions, I would AGF and try to discuss if the information is wrong. After that, I would template them accordingly. If the user is disruptive, I would try to see if the information is wrong. If it is, I would discuss, if it isn't, I would template. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
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.
- A delete warning, level of warning depends on previous occurrences, but I would start at level 2 if none.
- A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
- If they have not edited disruptively before this, I would discuss it with them, if not, a vandalism level 1 warning.
- A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
- There isn't a template for this, so I would look at the edit summary, if it seems like a pointless one, I would discuss with the user.
- A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
- A vandalism level 3 warning.
- A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
- A uw-delete warning, level depending if they have done this before, it may be a test.
- A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
- A test level 1 warning, if they have not done this already.
- A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
- A vandalism level 1 warning, if they have not done this already.
- A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
- I would check to see if he has been arrested. If he hasn't, a uw-biog4 warning may be in order.
- A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
- A blanking 4im level warning.
- A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
- Report to AIV.
- 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).
- Report to ANI.
- A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
- Discuss with the user, as this is probably just a test. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
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)!
- Tag under CSD G11.
- Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
- CSD G11
- Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
- CSD A1 and A7.
- A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
- CSD G3
- Fuck Wiki!
- CSD G3
What would you do in the following circumstance:
- A user blanks a page they very recently created.
- I would tag it for speedy deletion, under G7.
- After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
- I would discuss with the user, and ask him why he has this page, and possibly template him.
- I would tag it again. If that doesn't succeed, I would report the editor. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
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 - Probably, it may be promotional. I would talk with the editor, and if nothing succeeded, tell an admin.
- Poopbubbles - Most likely disruptive, I would report at UAA.
- Brian's Bot - Misleading, Report at UAA.
- sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj It's a confusing username, which doesn't violate the policy. I would discuss with the user.
- Bobsysop - report, as misleading.
- 12:12, 23 June 2012 - It may indicate an intent to disrupt, or is confusing, I would discuss with the user.
- PMiller - Not a violation of the username policy.
- OfficialJustinBieber - Report at UAA, as misleading. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
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)? - Yes, you can, if the vandalism isn't obvious.
- Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported? -They should be reported at WP:AIV, with diffs.
- Where and how should complex abuse be reported? - It should be reported at WP:ANI, with an explanation, and the admins will sort it out. If the admins can't sort it out, take it to arbcom.
- Where and how should blatant username violations be reported? - They should be reported at WP:UAA, with an explanation
- Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported? - They should be reported to WP:ANI, similar to question 3.
- Where and how should an edit war be reported? An edit war should be reported at WP:AN3RR, with diffs.
- Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported? They should be reported to the admins or oversighters, privately. They will revdel/oversight the information. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
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.
Final score[edit]
| Part | Total available | Your score | Percentage weighting | Your percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5 | 25 | ||
| 2 | 11 | 15 | ||
| 3 | 8 | 10 | ||
| 4 | 8 | 10 | ||
| 5 | 7 | 10 | ||
| 6 | 18 | 30 | ||
| TOTAL | 51 | 100 |