User:Pahunkat/CVUA/Trental
Hello Trental, and welcome to your Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your academy page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me at my talk page.
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.
There are several sections of the training course. In some of them, will be asking you to do perform practical exercises (for example, patrolling recent changes or the abuse log in order to find problematic edits); in others, I will ask you to read certain policies and guidelines, and then ask you some questions about their content. It is not a problem if you give the wrong answer to any of the questions - making mistakes and discussing them is a crucial part of the learning process. For that reason, it is important that you do not attempt to find previous users' training pages in order to identify the 'right' answers to give: all your answers should be your own, so that we can identify and address any misconceptions that you might have. There is no time pressure to complete the course: we will go at whatever pace works for you, and you can take a pause or ask questions at any point along the way.
- Communication
Counter-vandalism work can result in very large watchlists, which can make it more difficult to monitor pages using that alone. For this reason, I will ping you whenever I update this page with some feedback or a new task; I would also ask you to ping me when you have completed a task, so that I get a notification telling me that it's ready for review. See WP:PING for details on how to do this if you aren't sure. Pahunkat (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The start[edit]
Gadgets[edit]
Twinkle[edit]
Twinkle is a highly useful gadget that can be enabled by any autoconfirmed user. It is used to automate a variety of maintenance tasks, including reverting vandalism, tagging pages for deletion and requesting page protection (you'll learn about these later in the course). See Wikipedia:Twinkle for more information about this tool.
Redwarn[edit]
Redwarn is a tool specifically designed for reverting vandalism and warning users. You can read its documentation, including how to install the tool, at Wikipedia:RedWarn.
Huggle[edit]
Huggle is another anti-vandalism tool which comes in the form of a desktop application. To use Huggle you must have rollback permissions, so we won't be covering Huggle during this course - though feel free to ask me about it upon completion. You can read up about it at Wikipedia:Huggle.
- Enable Twinkle and RedWarn (if you haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled them.
User:Pahunkat, I already had twinkle installed and was able to enable RedWarn successfully! Excited to start working. Trental (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Finding the vandals[edit]
There are two main ways to find edits to check for vandalism. The first is through the recent changes log - this can be accessed by clicking the 'Recent changes' link in the 'contribute' section at the left navigation bar, or navigating to Special:Recentchanges. The second way if through monitoring the abuse log, which lists edits which have tripped edit filters - these edits may still go through or may be disallowed depending on the filter. This can be accessed at Special:Abuselog.
Good faith and vandalism[edit]
When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful to an article, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. Note that good faith edits are different to completely good edits. While it is necessary to revert good-faith edits, we treat them differently from vandalism, so it is important to recognize the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit. Please read WP:AGF, WP:BITE and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the tasks in this section.
AGF is one of the most important policies to bear in mind when patrolling for vandalism - it's important that you get this right, so please take time to read the above policies carefully - if you have any confusion at all please raise it with me below. We'll stay on this section for as long as necessary, there's no limit on the time it takes to complete this section.
A new user makes an edit that needs to be reverted. On which circumstances would you AGF: Edits contrary to the manual of style, replacing the name of a BLP with "Wikipedia is stupid", edits that don't adhere to a neutral point of view, addition of unsourced (not defamatory) content, adding swear words to the text of an article. Include reasons
- Pahunkat, I would AGF when a new user edits contrary to the manual of style, makes an edit that does not adhere to a neutral pov, or adds unsourced (not defamatory content. All these edits would appear to me to be good-faith non-vandalous attempted edits to improve Wikipedia. In an attempt to not bite the new user, I would help them by leaving messages on their talk-page giving them relevant information to improve their editing. Replacing the name of a BLP w/ "Wikipedia is stupid" and adding swear words to the text of an article do not appear to be in good faith to me. They both are vandalous and do not seem like edits good faith edits new users would make. Trental (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
- Pahunkat, It is important to assume good faith when reviewing edits. A good faith edit is one that may be not in accordance with policy or one that even holds incorrect information, but is not in an attempt to hurt wikipedia. Good faith edits sometimes have very large issues, but that does not make them vandalous. Vandalism edits are edits that are intended to hurt wikipedia. All vandalous edits are unconstructive. Trental (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Please explain why it is important to not to WP:BITE newcomers whose edits may have been made in good faith
- Pahunkat, New users make up the bulk of substantive edits to wikipedia. It is much more likely for a new user, who could've been a constructive member of our community, to leave Wikipedia if they encounter hostility. Instead of biting new users, it's important to assume good faith on edits that may not conform to Wikipedia rules and give new users the resources they need to gradually learn and get better! Trental (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC) I wasn't aware of that new users make up the bulk of edits - but yes, we shouldn't "bite" new users so they're encouraged to stay here and make constructive edits
You come across an edit, and you find yourself unsure as to whether it was made in good or bad faith. In cases like these do you treat the edit as made in good faith or bad faith, and why?
- Pahunkat, You should assume good faith unless you have clear evidence that the edit was made in bad faith. Trental (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. These can be from your editing history or from your next recent changes/Abuse log patrol.
| Type | Diff | Trainer's comment |
|---|---|---|
| Good-faith edit | Diff |  Likely OR/possibly making a complaint
|
| Good-faith edit | Diff | Likely OR but not made in bad faith
|
| Good-faith edit | Diff | Same as #1 |
| Vandalism | Diff |  I'm slightly going to disagree with this - it's an opinion but not nexessarily intended to disrupt the encyclopedia
|
| Vandalism | Diff | Blatant
|
| Vandalism | Diff | Blatant
|
Trental (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
A note about Redwarn and Twinkle[edit]
Hopefully you'll have noticed that RedWarn allows you three primary options for performing a rollback - green, blue, and red links (see the screenshot). All three will revert all of the most recent consecutive edits made by a single user to a page. The orange button should only be used when a user blanks a large portion of the page without an edit summary that explains why - this is called unexplained removal of content.
Try to use these buttons where possible. The green and the blue ones allow you to add an edit summary - it's described as 'optional', but you should not treat it as such - always leave a brief edit summary, even if it's just 'Rv test edit', or 'Rv unexplained removal of content', or whatever. Use the green one when you think it's a good faith mistake, and the blue one when you're not sure. Only use the red one when you are certain that it is unambiguous vandalism - it saves time, because it leaves a generic edit summary, and all of them will take you directly to the talk page of the person you have reverted, to allow you to use the 'Warn' option to give them a warning. (Also note that you can use the purple "restore this version" button when you need to revert edits by multiple users.) There are more options for 'rollback' buttons if you click the three dots at the very end of the menu, for edits that require reverting because they violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines (for example edits uncompliant with the manual of style, undisclosed paid editing and enforcing violations of WP:3RR).
Likewise, with Twinkle there are three 'rollback' links - once again they are red, blue and green. You should apply the same principles of judgement as for the buttons in RedWarn when deciding which link to use.
Note that, per WP:3RR, An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. However, exceptions apply (see the 3RR page) - including reverting blatant and obvious vandalism. If you're not sure, it's best not to go past three reverts and attempt to engage the editor in discussion.
Hey Trental! As above, the way this course works is that I will set a section with reading/tasks for you to complete at your own pace, once you're done you can ping me below the section for me to have a look, give feedback and move on to the next part of the course. The first section has already been added - it's about the difference between good-faith edits and vandalism. If you have any questions at any point in the course, you can raise them below my comments or on my talk page - I hope you enjoy the course! Pahunkat (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also, if my responses are unreasonably slow please chase me on my talk page/via email. Pahunkat (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
edit: Pahunkat, just realized that I mentioned your name wrong on the assignment above! So it probably didn't tag you. Trental (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Warning and reporting[edit]
When you use RedWarn or 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 and 4im, 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 note that most of this is automated on RedWarn; you'll need to pick this only if you pick the blue button.
- Please answer the following questions
- Why do we warn users?
- When would a 4im (only) warning be appropriate?
- Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it? (Hint - read the link before answering!)
- What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalizes again?
- Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. For each revert/warning please fill in a line on the table below. Note that you must be the user that reverts the vandalism and warns the user. If you have trouble with the wiki markup, tell me and we'll get it sorted out.
| # | Diff of your revert, and warning if applicable. | Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff | Trainer's Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | diff | comment | |
| 2 | diff | comment | |
| 3 | diff | comment | |
| 4 | diff | comment | |
| 5 | diff | comment | |
| 6 | diff | comment | |
| 7 | diff | comment | |
| 8 | diff | comment | |
| 9 | diff | comment | |
| 10 | diff | comment |
Hi Trental, the above section was done well - the rest of the course will be in that type of format. I've attached the next section above - once again, ping me if completed/you have any questions. Pahunkat (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)