User:WorldTraveller101/CVUA

Hi. I am WorldTraveller101. Currently, I am learning how to use various tools and will be learning how to use CVUA. I currently use Twinkle and while I know and understand it, I'd like to use a wider variety of tools to fight vandals and trolls. Thanks guys. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 19:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! This programme is meant to be tailored to you, so do not hesitate to tell me if you want extra teaching on anything, or if something is not working for you. Make sure you have read through Wikipedia:Vandalism because this is an essential resource for this course.

How do I 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. 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.

Unit 1: Good faith or vandalism?

Helpful links

Before you start this activity, you have to recognise the difference between "Good Faith" and "Vandalism" edits. Good faith edits are made by people genuinely trying to contribute, while vandalism is when someone is purposely making disruptive edits. Vandalism edits are sometimes called "Bad Faith edits". Remember to read through the resources provided above!

In your own words, please explain how you would tell "Good Faith" and "Vandalism" edits apart.: A: A "Good Faith" edit often comes from a newer user who as made an obvious attempt at making a constructive edit, but perhaps, added incorrect information or have missed a guideline or format. Vandalism is when a user or IP is intentionally creating serious damage to Wikipedia articles by adding silly information or blanking the page, etc.

Y Good, but test edits are also considered good faith. Blanking, and gibberish are considered test edits unless they do it repeatedly. nerd fighter 21:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Please find and revert 2 examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and 2 examples of vandalism. Please give the diffs (differences) of your reverts below. To do so, just copy the full link of the difference from your url box and paste them inside the square brackets. If you need more help with using diffs, just ask me.

[1] This was considered good faith, but unhelpful.

Y You are right but the warning you gave was too harsh. Level one warnings are appropriate for GF edits, not level 3 or 4. Don't worry, it's a mistake I used to make

[2] This was considered a good faith edit, as the user was new, but it was inaccurate and unhelpful.

Y Good revert, good warning!

[3] These four edits [as you can see were reverted before I started using Twinkle], was an addition of incorrect information on purpose.
[4] This was obvious vandalism from 77.70.28.120 that I reverted.

Unit 2: How do I warn and report a vandal?

Helpful links

It is time for you to enable Twinkle. Go to your preferences, and select Twinkle (under gadgets). 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. Remember to read the resources provided!

Why do we warn users?: A: We warn users to remind them of the policies and guidelines so Wikipedia can be as clean, vandal-free and accurate as possible Y Right on

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?: A: A level 4im warning would be appropriate if it is a user or IP who appears to be new, but is doing major vandalism to articles or pages, such as blanking, messing with the formatting, or is purposefully ruining something like user pages. N Blanking pages can be seen as test editing and therefore they should be warned with a level 1 blanking warning. Userpage vandalism is usually considered level 3, unless it is especially crude (as in slurs)

What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?: A: I should report them to the AIV. Y Right!

If a user has vandalised twice but has not received any warnings for it, what might you do?

A: If they are a new user, give them a Level 1 warning for vandalism. Newer users who have not been warned but are more likely to be more familiar with policies might get a Level 2 warning.

Sounds reasonable.

Unit 3:Anti Vandal Tools

Helpful links

WP:Recent changes patrol#Tools
What you have been doing so far is named the old school approach (Besides using Twinkle). As well as manually going throughSpecial:RecentChanges, it includes undos, "last clean version" restores, and manually warning users.

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

Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool

Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool monitors the RSS feed and flags edits with common vandalism terms. It's a very simple tool, but which is useful for not having to go check each and every diff on Recent Changes.

Twinkle

The first tool I want to mention is Twinkle, it's a very useful and I strongly suggest you enable it (in the Gadgets section of your preferences). It provides three types of rollback functions (vandalism, normal and AGF) as well as an easy previous version restore function (for when there are a number of different editors vandalising in a row). Other functions include a full library of speedy deletion functions, and user warnings. It also has a function to propose and nominate pages for deletion, to request page protection to report users to WP:AIV & WP:UAA (which we'll get to later).

Rollback

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

STiki

STiki consists of (1) a component that listens to the RecentChanges feed and scores edits on their possibility of being uncontructive; and (2) An application which scans through the most recent revisions on pages and scores the possibility of them being uncontructive. Requires Rollback

Huggle

Huggle is a Windows program which parses (orders them on the likelihood of being unconstructive edits and on the editor's recent history) from users not on its whitelist. It allows you to revert vandalism, warn and reports users in one click.

Which of the tools do you plan to use? Why?: A: I am already using Twinkle to do easier tasks, such as revert multiple edits at once, instead of one at a time. I will likely use Huggle and Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool sometime soon to do other tasks that Twinkle doesn't do, and eventually, Rollback and STiki to make even more conveniences and it will shave off more time when reverting major vandalism or test edits.

Unit 4: How do I deal with difficult users?

Helpful links

How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?: A: Often, a good-faithed user will often be gentley with words. These users are generally more experienced and might be softly questioning, or it can be a newer user, who might have harsher words, but likely means good. A troll will often bait or harass users for excitement and will disrupt for kicks.

If a user believes an edit of their which you reverted was not vandalism, and questioned you about it, what should you do?: A: You should give specific examples of why they are vandalism, per the vandalism policy.

What would you do if an admin continually harasses you on your talk page?: A: If an admin harasses you, you should either take it to ANI or ArbCom.

What would you do if an several IP users continually harass you?: A: These users should be reported at ANI and will be appropriately dealt with.

Unit 5: Protection and speedy deletion

Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only anadministrator can protect or delete pages; however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion or request protection. If you have Twinkle installed, you can use the Twinkle menu to request page protection or speedy deletion (the RPP or CSD options).

Protection

Helpful links

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

A: A page should be semi-protected if there is persistent vandalism or disruptive editing coming from IP's/anonymous editors (less for registered users, because you can edit semi-protected articles, as long as your account is >4 days old.

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

A: When there is persistent vandalism of both autoconfirmed and IP. This will allow for all to still edit. This allows for a reviewer to accept the edit and then add it.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

A: When there are content disputes, persistent vandalism by both IP and autoconfirmed/registered users, or major edit wars occurring.

What is a content dispute?

A: A content dispute is where two editors disagree about the neutrality of an article (this often occurs on controversial topic).

Speedy deletion

WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?

A: A page should be speedy deleted if it meets one of the criterion for speedy deletion, such as it is made form a banned user (ex. G5).

Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below.: A: