User:DatGuy/NewByzantine

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 in the section below. Make sure you read through Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

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.
 * How to use this page

Questions
Write any questions here! Dat GuyTalkContribs 08:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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.
 * I've enabled it, DatGuy NewByzantine (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2017 (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 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.
 * In a Wikipedia article, an edit made in good faith would be one that was not made by the user in any malicious intent, but is not that beneficial to the article. It could be adding trivial information, original research, unsourced information, words or phrases that contradict Wikipedia's NPOV, etc. These edits do not improve the quality of the article, but the user is just trying to help. Vandalism on a Wikipedia page would be edits that are made by users who intend to harm and lower the quality of Wikipedia pages. Vandals do not wish to further the project's expansion. Vandalism can be adding obscene language in articles, unexplained removal of content (section blanking), adding obscene pictures or "shock images", adding jokes and clearly unwanted phrases, essentially any edit that is unconstructive and made with unhelpful intent is vandalism. Vandalism and good faith edits are similar in that they both are not very helpful in articles, but they differ in the user's intent. The user's intent can be found based on edit descriptions. If an editor added large amounts of unsourced or trivial information, and clearly stated that they added information before they hit the save button, this would be considered a good faith edit. Good faith edits are a mistake, but an accidental one. Vandalism, on the other hand are intentional. If an editor added complete nonsense or extremely opinion-oriented (i.e. editing the ExxonMobil page to say that no one should buy their gas because it 'sucks') that would be considered vandalism. To tell both apart, it should be important to look at the content of the edit to ensure that the content is appropriate, and also, if needed, a reliable source is provided. See also plain and simple guide to vandalism.


 * 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
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Squidward_Tentacles&diff=prev&oldid=760235985
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reductio_ad_Hitlerum&diff=prev&oldid=760275961 What's the edit that added this? If already, you should revert the previous one. This might qualify as a good edit actually. Pinging my trusty steed  Please either reply here or in the questions box :). Dat GuyTalkContribs 14:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yo - clearly I'd fail your course- I don't quite understand the question! What am I looking for exactly? Rocinante ;) 14:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh. Would you consider the diff of the page "Reductio ad Hitlerum" a good-faith but nonconstructive edit, or just a good edit? Dat GuyTalkContribs 14:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it! Well; the info was there quite a while (since 11 March 2016), and it was sourced- but although the sources are reliable for material on the film industry (being 'trade papers)', I think for the assertion the artile was making we would prefer slightly more heavyweight, mainstream news outlets (it being a pretty hardcore WP:BLP allegation!). Other mileages may differ of course; but I'd veer towards it beng a good edit, all things being equal. If it had been me, I probably would have removed it as well, but then put in on the TP for a discussion. That way, the community takes responsibility for any crapness of sourcing, and I haven't just unilaterally removed source material. Just my opinion though. What you think? Or I suppose you can't give us the answers yet ;) O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  14:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suicide_of_Amina_Filali&diff=prev&oldid=760281031


 * Vandalism
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_v._Boren&diff=prev&oldid=764410947
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rap_Monster&diff=prev&oldid=764173666
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giant_squid&diff=764176257&oldid=764176115

NewByzantine (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please use diff2 next time. Dat GuyTalkContribs 14:22, 23 February 2017 (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:
 * Why do we warn users?
 * We warn users because we want to let them know that they have violated a WP policy. We do this in hope that the user may learn from their mistakes and strive to edit without making these mistakes again. Repeated violations receive repeated warnings, each time with a more stronger warning, since the user should probably be more aware of what they are doing. NewByzantine (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "How many warning levels are there?"
 * 4 levels. NewByzantine (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
 * If a user has been warned adequately (around 4 times), for violating WP policy on the same occasion (vandalizing the same article even after being warned), a 4im warning would be appropriate. NewByzantine (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "❌ 'Level 4im – Only Warning – Assumes bad faith, very strong cease and desist, first and only warning. Generally used in the case of excessive or continuous disruption from a user or specific IP.' - UWUL"


 * Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?
 * You should because just writing for example uw-vandalism will only show uw-vandalism. Putting in front of 'uw' subst: and adding curly braces would bring up the template for a first vandalism warning. NewByzantine (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "If you do not subst it, it shows your name as Jimbo Wales."
 * What do yellow ticks mean? Do you want me to answer the question again? NewByzantine (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * I would go to WP:AiV, and submit a block request and explain how the user has been warned adequately and has ignored these warnings and continued to vandalize. NewByzantine (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Don't forget diffs!w"


 * Please give examples (using ) of three different warnings (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.
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Article, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.
 * This can be used if you see an editor adding in information that is not backed up any reliable sources or citations, and can be inferred to be original research.


 * Information.svg Hello, I'm NewByzantine. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Article seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
 * This can be used if you see an editor adding in words that contradict WP's NPOV. If an editor adds in words such as 'unfortunately' or 'fortunately' that are not in quotes, these words are POV, and should be removed and the editor should be made aware that their edits violate this policy via this warning.


 * Information.svg Hello, I'm NewByzantine. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Article have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.
 * This should only be used if an edit is blatant vandalism, and clearly not made in good faith, or are not test edits. These editors should be warned that what they are doing harms Wikipedia, and these warnings accomplish that.
 * NewByzantine (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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:, and.

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

Shared IP tagging
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:").

Tools
Recent changes patrol 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.

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.

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.

Dealing with difficult users
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?


 * How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?

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
Please read the protection policy.


 * In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
 * If an article has received a significant amount of vandalism, or to prevent sockpuppets of blocked users to make edits.
 * "Please give all the reasions."


 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?


 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?


 * In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?


 * In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?


 * Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.


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


 * 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.

Usernames
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: Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particluar attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.
 * 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).


 * DJohnson


 * LMedicalCentre


 * Fuqudik


 * ColesStaff




 * 172.295.64.27


 * Bieberisgay

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 Justin Bieber by adding in statements that he is gay.
 * Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?


 * Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?


 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?


 * 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?


 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?


 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?

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?


 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?


 * Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?


 * 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?


 * If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?


 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?


 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?

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?


 * If you do revert which warning template would you use?


 * Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?


 * Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?


 * Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?

Results
Your Score:

Rollback
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.

Tools
There a number of tools which assist users with reverting vandalism. I primarily use two of them WP:HUGGLE & WP:STIKI.


 * Would you like to learn to use either of these tools?

Monitoring period
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 in this section on my talk page. If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look.

Final Exam
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%)

 * 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).
 * 1) A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article. What would you do if it was their first warning? What about after that.
 * 2) 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?
 * 3) 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?
 * 4) A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
 * 5) 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?
 * 1) A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
 * 2) 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?
 * 1) 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?
 * 1) 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?

Part 2 (15%)

 * 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.
 * 1) A user blanks Cheesecake.
 * 2) A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
 * 3) A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
 * 4) A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
 * 5) A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
 * 6) A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
 * 7) A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
 * 8) A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
 * 9) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
 * 10) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
 * 11) 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).
 * 12) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * 1) A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
 * 2) A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
 * 3) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
 * 4) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
 * 5) 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).
 * 6) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
 * 2) 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).
 * 3) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.

Part 3 (10%)

 * What CSD tag you would put on the following articles (The content below is the article's content).
 * 1) Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
 * 2) Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
 * 3) Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
 * 4) A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
 * 5) Fuck Wiki!
 * 1) A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
 * 2) Fuck Wiki!
 * 1) Fuck Wiki!
 * 1) Fuck Wiki!

What would you do in the following circumstance:
 * A user blanks a page they very recently created.


 * After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.

Part 4 (10%)

 * 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).
 * 1) TheMainStreetBand
 * 2) Poopbubbles
 * 3) Brian's Bot
 * 4) sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
 * 5) Bobsysop
 * 12:12, 23 June 2012
 * 1) PMiller
 * 2) OfficialJustinBieber

Part 5 (10%)

 * Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.
 * 1) Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
 * 2) Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
 * 3) Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
 * 4) Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
 * 5) Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
 * 6) Where and how should an edit war be reported?
 * 7) Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?

Part 6 - Theory in practice (30%)

 * 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.