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. WorldTraveller101Did 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.
Good, but test edits are also considered good faith. Blanking, and gibberish are considered test edits unless they do it repeatedly. nerdfighter 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.
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.
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 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.
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. 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. Right, just be sure to check over your revert first to make sure that you are not in the wrong .
- 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. Another option is have your talk page semi-protected.
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 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
- 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. Sure
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). That is one example of a content dispute. Really its whenever two or more editors disagree about what should go in the article.
Speedy deletion
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: 1 I tagged it and it was speedy deleted.
First of all, I would really like to thank you for being so patient while I was away with exams . I realize that I didn't notify everyone that I would be gone, so it would seem like I just was ignoring you. Believe me, I was not trying to ignore you, but I blocked Wikipedia emails. I did this because last year I didn't do too well on my exams, so I wanted to turn it around this year. Again, thanks for the patience.
Unit 6: Usernames
- Helpful links
Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol the User creation log to check for new users with inappropriate usernames. There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed:
- Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, usernames that impersonate other people, or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
- Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.
- Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
- Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.
- Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).
All usernames can be reported at WP:UAA. There, an administrator will decide whether it is a violation and whether the account needs to have a username change. WorldTraveller101BreaksFixes 15:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- LMedicalCentre
- A: Promotional username. Username appears to promote a medical centre.
- Fuqudik
- A: Disruptive username. Seems to be word playing with "Fuck you dick".
- ColesStaff
- A: Promotional username. Seems to represent an organization.
- ~~~~
- A: Misleading username. Represents the signature on Wikipedia using 4 tildes.
- 172.295.64.27
- A: Misleading username. Resembles a possibly active IP address.
- Bieberisgay
- A: Disruptive username. It is a derogatory toward a living person, Justin Bieber (although I've never really been a fan of him
.
Next unit is the progress test!
Unit 7: Progress test
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
- You encounter an IP vandalising Steven Harper by adding in statements that he is a vampire.
- Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?
- A: Vandalism because the user is purposefully disrupting Wikipedia.
- Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?
- A: WP:VANDALISM, WP:BLPREMOVE, and WP:LIBEL
- What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?
- A: A level 1 or whois, a level 2, level 3, level 4 and if they continue right after a block, a 4-im.
- 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?
- A: No, per WP:3RR, it states that it doesn't apply for reverting blatant vandalism and/or BLP violations.
- Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or Template:Vandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)?
- A: IP Vandal, because it is an IP address.
- What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
- A: Persistent vandalism, vandalism after 4 or 4-im (shouldn't be reported w/o one of them), and BLP violations.
Scenario 2
- 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?
- A: That's just nonsense, so no per WP:NOTVAND.
- What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?
- A: Level 1 test edit warning.
- Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?
- A: Green/AGF
- 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?
- A: Not yet. Often, users should not be reported unless they have an active level 4 or 4-im warning at their talk. However, if they were to have blanked a 4 or 4-im from their talk page, then I would.
- If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?
- A: Yes. It can be for being a vandalism-only account.
- Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or Template:Vandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)?
- What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
- A: Vandalism after level 4 or 4-im warning (you'd have to include diffs of vandalism and show the warnings and any that were blanked from their talk page).
Scenario 3
- 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?
- A: Green/AGF
- If you do revert which warning template would you use?
- A: A 4-im for advertisement and promotion.
- Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?
- A: Yes, per G11 and G12.
- Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?
- A:
Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw that you edited or created Laptops Inc, and I noticed that the username you have chosen, "WorldTraveller101", seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of something other than yourself. Please note that you may not edit on behalf of a company, group, institution, product, or website which relates to the entity in question, and Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are promotional or accounts that are shared. If you are willing to use a personal account, please take a moment to create a new account or request a username change that represents only yourself as an individual. You should also read our Conflict of interest guideline and Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and remember that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you.
- Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?
- A: Not yet. They should be given a fair chance to ditch that account and come back with an account that fits the username policy (as long as there is no WorldTraveller102 ). However, if they continue the edits, then they would go to UAA. Also, it is a promotional username.
Results
Your Score: ?/18