User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Wretchskull

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 User talk:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Wretchskull.

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.

Twinkle Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.

Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.

Cassiopeia Yup! It's on! :) Wretchskull (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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, WP:VANDALISM 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.

Answer: A good faith edit is an edit that is sincere and honest in its delivery. The person editing has no intent to damage Wikipedia's reliability or reputation, even if the edit is unconstructive (for example an edit riddled with grammatical issues). Vandalism is an edit or behavior that is deliberately trying to obstruct Wikipedia's purpose, which is creating an encyclopedia. Vandalism could be blanking an entire page or replacing a chunk of text with a humorous or offensive comment. That is the most concise that I can explain it in. Wretchskull (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Y

The key here is "intention". Do check the editor history log and talk page to see their editing pattern if their edit is in question (could be good faith but dont know the Wikipedia guidelines). If an editor intends to help Wikipedia, and the edit is considered disruptive, they are still considered a "good faith" editor especially the new editor does not aware their edits are disruptive. Editor might edit adds incorrect or unsourced information and this does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal. Vandalism is a "deliberate attempt" to harm Wikipedia. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Sorry, I don't know if I was clear enough. Yeah, I was basically trying to explain intention between the lines heh. What I was saying is that if a person is deliberately trying to disrupt Wikipedia's purpose then it is vandalism. If let's say, a person decides to blank an entire section because it is littered with profanity, it is unconstructive but good faith. The person is unaware that Wikipedia is not censored and believes that he is doing the right thing (see WP:NOTCENSOR) even though the edit is incorrect. If a person decides to blank an entire page without a valid reason (such as G10 speedy deletion in BLPs) then it is vandalism. If a person decides to maliciously change digits by one (which happens often) then it is vandalism. I check how/what the person edits and what the intention is. Checking the user contributions is also a good idea, as they might be all reverted, suggesting vandalism (or warnings on their talk page). I hope that is clearer. Wretchskull (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2021 (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 if you wish.

Good faith

Answer:

(1)

Title: Northern, central and southern Vietnam. Diff:

Good faith edit 1.

User talk: Person 1.

Reason: The person might have thought that their edit improved the writing but the grammar was incorrect.

Note: Most of my edits (usually non-vandalism) also have my own edit summary on them. You can also check them out.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(2)

Title: Childline India. Diff:

Good faith edit 2.

User talk: Person 2.

Reason: Italicised heading followed by adding a signature to the last edit onto the article.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(3) Title: List of Station 19 episodes. Diff: Good faith edit 3. User talk: Person 3. Reason: I did some digging and it turns out that he wrote the story but not in his own words (copyright reasons). There was also a note for editors about it which was, I assume, ignored or at least accidentally overlooked.

N. WP:COPYVIO Violation of copyright is considered vandalism especially the hidden text indicate/notify editors to write in your own words. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(4) Title: John Belushi. Diff: Good faith edit 4. User talk: Person 4. Reason: I slightly know the person in the article and this edit seems to kind of make sense and is, therefore, a good faith edit. It is, however, poorly delivered and doesn't follow WP:MOS. The sentence is written right next to a heading and the text doesn't seem coherent or properly understandable. It also doesn't have a source. I gave a note to his talk page and also recommended him to check out some important Wikipedia guidelines.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Answer:

(1)

Title: Samaire Armstrong. Diff:

Vandalism edit 1.

User talk: Vandal 1.

Reason: Blatant page blanking. I gave a 4im-warning to see if he would stop but he wouldn't. They were immediately blocked from editing by an administrator.

Y. Good. The editor removed a lot of the content in a series of edits - see here. Do note, unsourced content can be removed from a page unless the removal is a huge chunk (almost all the content in the page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(2) Title: Perijá tapaculo. Diff: Vandalism edit 2. User talk: Vandal 2. Reason: Adding inappropriate content. I gave a warning but saw that it was a vandalism-only account. The person was banned by an administrator.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(3)

Title: Talk:Interstate 20 in Georgia. Diff:

Vandalism edit 3.

User talk: Vandal 3.

Reason: Blatant page blanking (reverted by someone else). I left a 4im-warning for his vandalism-only behavior but it was eventually removed and the IP was :blocked by an administrator. Here was my warning:

[1].

Y. Usually if a new user changing the section or subsection of the, they might not aware how the Wiki markup works. However, this user keep on doing the same thing in two different talk page even after receiving the warning/info. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Wretchskull Good day.

(1) Any question regrading the assignment, please let me know here. For other questions not relating to the assignments, ping me on the talk page of this subpage Here.

(2) Do note, you need to provide the hist diff as per diffs guidelines and not you usual hist diff link.

(3) pls note (important) - do not revert more than 3 times within 24 hours on the same article unless the edits are absolutely considered blatant vandalisms for you will be blocked from editing.

(4)If you are not sure about the edits (whether it is a vandalism or not", pls do nothing and let other more experience/counter vandalism editors to take action.

(5) Pls provide article name, hist diffs, editor talk page where you place the warning message, reports hist diffs and any links that is applicable. Also, pls provide the reasons/justification/explanate of your answers.

(6) Pls read the links provided in each assignment and also do read links/see also section pages on the links pages provided to gain more knowledge of the subjecs/assignment topics.

(7) Pls note that the motto of CUVA is "Civility – Maturity – Responsibility" and do treat the editors involved in civil manner in communication. Welcome to CUVA. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia There were are all my answers, cheers! Wretchskull (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Wretchskull See comments and pls provide additional food faith edit Question 4. Once you have done it, please ping me. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia See the "what is vandalism/good faith edit" section and good faith edit example 4. I hope this is clear. Wretchskull (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Wretchskull Reviewed. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I'm ready! Wretchskull (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2021 (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

(1) Why do we warn users?

Answer: Warning users notify & guide editors towards correct decisions and guidelines and prevent & dissuade vandals from disruptive editing. Good faith testers who may make a small mistake in an edit (such as incorrect referencing) should usually receive a welcome notice with a message regarding their edit instead of a warning or perhaps a non-template message as to not appear robotic/stale (see WP:CIVIL). They should receive a level 1 warning if their test edit was disruptive (such as adding "Hello world" to an article). Bad faith editors should get a warning if their edit is egregious (such as replacing a chunk of text with an offensive comment). It is always important to see the person's intentions, such as through user contributions, to judge whether the person should get a warning if they are making good/bad faith edits. The warning also notifies the user of consequences if their actions are severe, such as warning them of a possible block or ban which should hopefully prevent a person from repeating their mistakes.

Y. If a new editor makes their first edit adding "hello / hello world / Hi/testing /etc. or removing/adding a letter/number in a word/numbers", we could take it as good faith and a "test edit" warning should be placed on the editor talk page. Test edit is the edit when a new editor makes an edit in Wikipedia "to see if the actually could make an edit in Wikipedia". However, if the same editor continues to make such edits after receiving the test edit warning message then that would consider disruptive/vandalism acts.

The purpose to warn users is to "educate" the editors on constructive editing, especially those who are new to Wikipedia and to "deter" them of such actions with stronger warnings leads up to a block. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(2) When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

Answer: If a person is on a continuous bad-faith vandalism streak (such as maliciously changing dates and information) or engaging in extreme vandalism (such as blanking an entire page and replacing it with an inappropriate photo), a level 4im warning would be appropriate.

Y A 4im warning is the most serious of all warnings and is appropriate in cases of gross, extreme or persistent vandalism which by ignoring it and continues to make vandalism edit after receiving it could lead to a block. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(3) Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?

Answer: Templates should be substituted when they are added on talk pages. If one were to welcome a user, one would want the user to get the exact message that you were intending to give without any changes that could potentially change the context if the template were to be updated. In order to substitute a template, one should get any template such as {{uw-vandalism1|Article}} and put "subst:" before the template action (in this case a user warning or "uw"). If it was a warning about vandalism, it should look like this (in source edit mode): {{subst:uw_vandalism1|Article}}.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(4) What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?

Answer: If they vandalize past their final warning they should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (Link: WP:AIV). A sysop will review the request and judge the situation. If the user is logged in, their account is most likely banned indefinitely if it is solely made for vandalism. IP's, however, are blocked temporarily.

Y. User would be blocked temporary if the nature of the vandalsim is not severe but would recive indenite banned the account is vandalism only account or the nature of the edits is severe and/or making repeated and egregious vandalism edits. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(5) Please give examples and please do the substitution (using {{Tlsubst|''name of template''}}) of three different warnings with three different levels (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.

Answer i: The {{Tlsubst|uw-notcensored1}}-template could be used when a user censors profanity (such as by adding asterisk: f**k) but is unaware of Wikipedia's non-censorship policy. One instance has happened to me where I saw a good faith editor adding grawlixes (replacing letters with symbols) to the word "nigga". I reverted the edit and gave the user the warning.

Y. Do note if the nature of the content do have profanity word like in a "quote" or supported by source as it is very relevant in the context/content, then to remove the word would subject to "notcensored" warning; however, if the profanity word has not place in the context/content then removing it would be considered a counter vandalism work - example "F**k Mr. XXX." Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer ii: The {{Tlsubst|uw-npov2}}-template could be used when a user adds information that is non-neutral and clearly controversial. If the edit is evidently not good faith (but not deliberately disruptive) a person may receive a level 2 warning regarding WP:NPOV. The person may be unaware of the NPOV rule in Wikipedia but may personally be very biased for/against a certain thing. If the person is aware of this and yet is still adding clearly controversial information, the person may get a higher warning level.

Y. Do note adding non NPOV content might not be controversial at times. Many instances editors adding non NPOV info - see MOS:PUFFERY

to o praise-filled adjectives, claims and bias. such as include use of adjectives "famous", "notable", "award-winning", "acclaimed", "most beautiful" and etc and the same with the adding negative info to downdrade the subject with word such as "most stupid", "no brain" and etc. Content should be written in neutral point of view where by the info is supported by independent, reliable sources. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer iii: The {{Tlsubst|uw-vandalism3}}-template could be used when a user has no history of "good" edits and simply starts making egregious blatant vandalism, usually more than one edit. That person doesn't need to be warned 4 times and can be immediately warned with a level 3 warning. Whether a person should get a 4im or a level 3 warning should be evaluated by the patroller by checking how bad the edit(s) was/(were) and seeing if they have a history of good faith constructive edits.

Y, Generally speaking, if the editor make the 5th vandalism edit after receiving 4 warning or make another vandalism edit after receiving 4im warning, then they can be reported to WP:AIV. However, sometimes their nature of the edits are so bad that admin would block them even no report was filed.

English Wikipedia counter vandalism warning system is flexible which means we dont always need to give warning level one then increase the warning to lead up to a block if the editor has been warned many times for many months and still doing the same vandalism edits or the nature of the edit is extremely bad vandalism edit then we could give warning level 2 or 3. However to say all that do stick to the the general guidelines where we palce level 1 first and increae the warning level and report them when they have made their 5th vandalism edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There were my answers, cheers! Wretchskull (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Wretchskull See assignment 2 above. For question 5 - subs three different templates (different warning and different level of warning}} see example below.

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.

Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Cassiopeia! I'm at this point very confused so far regarding the CVUA program. You sent a section about Wikidata and things going on there. I'm just confused because I've never used it, and I'm not sure what it has to do with countering vandalism on Wikipedia. Could you please explain? Cheers! Wretchskull (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Wretchskull Can you pls specify/mean where/what is the "a section about Wikidata and things" you mentioned above? Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Sorry, I must've clicked on something accidentally. Nevermind! :) Wretchskull (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Wretchskull OK. no problems. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Wretchskull If you have finished answering the questions, then pls inform me.03:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi! Didn't you check if the questions were answered when you read my comment? I gave the answers with the comment above in the same edit so maybe I wasn't clear enough. Anyway, the answers are there! :) Wretchskull (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Wretchskull Pls be specified the comment/answers on which assignment and question you mentioned. Every time when you have finsihed the assignement and would like to get the assignment review, then you need to inform me. Cassiopeia^(talk) 19:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I have finished the assignment about warnings and would like it to be reviewed... but did I not tell you earlier? Am I supposed to explicitly tell you to have them reviewed? I'm not very sure how the system works and if I am mistaken please correct me, but anyway. I'm finished and would like an assignment review :) Wretchskull (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Wretchskull Thank you for informing. See below

(1) You need to tell me "every time" when you have finished the assignment for I dont assume you have finished even you have answered all the questions for the reason that sometimes participants might still in "working in progress" stage which they might want to change their answers in later time. So when you state you have finished then I would sure that you would like the assignment to review as you could see I asked you in the above message to confirm prior I would review the assignment.

(2) if you have any questions regarding the assignment while you working on them or after the review, you can write a message to me and state your questions (be specific) by providing specific section , question # and including sub question # if applicable - example "Q4 (ii) under "Vandalism" section" and provide any hist link(s) if applicable.

(3) Any questions/communication regarding the assignment, do write in the communication section of that particular assignment. Any question regarding counter vandalism related topics/questions but not link to any particular assignment, then send the message to me on this program talk page - see here. Any questions outside the counter vandalism topics, write to me on my talk page.

Give me still tomorrow to get back to you on the review of Assignment 2. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 21:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Wretchskull See comments above and let me know if you have any questions. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi! I would like to proceed to the next assignment/task. I was slightly confused with some yellow ticks as, say, one of them had an explanation except my answer already addressed the issue (such as question (4) about vandalising past last/only warning). But anyway, I would like to continue with the tasks. Cheers! Wretchskull (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wretchskull If the answers are marked yellow tick, these meant that the answer are partially right. For Q4, your answer "...If the user is logged in, their account is most likely banned indefinitely if it is solely made for vandalism. IP's, however, are blocked temporarily...." - First of all, it doesnt matter is the account is still logged in when the admin is reviewing the AIV report of the editor, the editor involved will be blocked (2). How long the invovled editor be blocked/banned is subject to the nature of the seriously of the vandalsim edit. Usually, if the eidtor is "only vandalism account" then the invovled editor would be block indef. If the natured of the vandalsim is not serious then they will be blocked from editing temprorary. Let me know if you still have any questions. I will only post the next assignment once you have no question of the above assignment prior move on to the next one. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I have no more questions, I would like to proceed :) Wretchskull (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Tools

Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#Tools includes a list of tools and resources for those who want to fight vandalism with a more systematic and efficient approach.

What you have been doing so far is named the old school approach. As well as manually going through Special:RecentChanges, it includes undos, "last clean version" restores, and manually warning users.

There are a large number of tool which assist users in the fight against vandalism. They range from tools which help filter and detect vandalism to tools which will revert, warn and report users.

Twinkle

Twinkle, as you know, is very useful. 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, WP:SPI, and other administrative noticeboards.

User creation log

In my early days of fighting vandalism on Wikipedia, one of the strategies I would use to find vandalism was to patrol the account creation log. This is located at Special:Log/newusers, and it logs every time a new user account is created on Wikipedia. You'll notice that new accounts with no contributions so far will have a red "contribs" links, whereas new accounts with some contributions will have blue "contribs" links. One great way not only to find vandalism, but welcome new users to Wikipedia is to check the blue contribs links that come in.

Rollback

See rollback, this user right introduces an easy rollback button (which with one click reverts an editor's contributions). I'll let you know when I think you're ready to apply for the rollback user right.

Huggle

Huggle is also an application you download to your computer which presents you diffs (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. The rollback permission is required to use Huggle.

Make sure you keep in mind that some edits that seem like vandalism can be test edits. This happens when a new user is experimenting and makes accidental unconstructive edits. Generally, these should be treated with good faith, especially if it is their first time, and warned gently. The following templates are used for test edits: {{subst:uw-test1}}, {{subst:uw-test2}} and {{subst:uw-test3}}.

I just wanted to make sure you know about Special:RecentChanges, if you use the diff link in a different window or tab you can check a number of revisions much more easily. If you enable Hovercards in the Hover section of your preferences, you can view the diff by just hovering over it. Alternately, you can press control-F or command-F and search for "tag:". some edits get tagged for possible vandalism or section blanking.

Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Please include at least two test edits and at least two appropriate reports to AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below

#	Type	Diff of your revert	Your comment - If you report to AIV please include the diff	CASS' Comment
Example 1	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[2]	Already had up to level 4 warnings today on this article from other users, so straight to AIV My report to AIV Thankfully they were very rapidly blocked by the admin [3] Later, the admin hid the edits made by this editor - see User Contributions so the diff in 3rd column no longer works unfortunately - see also admins deletion log [4]
Example 2	WP:NPOV	[5]	Added their own opinion "...well known for causing trouble" about a protest group, this editor already had level 1 NPOV warning today, so I gave a level 2 {{subst:uw-npov2}}.
1	Test edit	Test edit	diff	Your comment
2	Test edit	diff	Your comment
3	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	diff	Your comment
4	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	diff	Your comment
5	WP:NPOV	diff	Your comment
6	WP:NPOV	diff	Your comment
7	WP:SPAM	diff	Your comment
8	Talking on the article	diff	Your comment
9	Unsourced	diff	Your comment
10	Your choice	diff	Your comment
11	Your choice	diff	Your comment
12	Your choice	diff	Your comment
13	Your choice	diff	Your comment
14	Your choice	diff	Your comment
15	Your choice	diff	Your comment

---

Wretchskull Good day. See assignment 3 above. If Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. Pls provide article name, hist diffs, editor talk page where you place the warning message, reports hist diffs and any links that is applicable. Aslo, pls provide the reasons/justification/explanate of your answers. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wretchskull Hi good day. Havent seen you work on the assignment for the last 4 weeks and if you need any assistance, pls let me know. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)