User:Music1201/CVUA/Redolta

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 my talk page.

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.

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.


 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Have you enabled Twinkle? || ✅
 * }
 * }

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.


 * {| class="wikitable"


 * What is the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit? || A good faith edit is an edit made by a new user who hasn't read and/or isn't familiar with the policies here on Wikipedia. A vandalism edit, on the other hand, is an edit intentionally made to harm Wikipedia. I've looked for a while, and I found two nearly perfect examples of both good faith edits and vandalism. An example of a good faith edit would be this edit on Windows XP. The user inserted correct information to the article, but this user probably has not read some of Wikipedia's policies (at least, not WP:WWIN). However, this edit would be considered vandalism because the user is obviously demonstrating his hate to Wikipedia and "how he will conquer Wikipedia".
 * How would you tell them apart? || A good faith edit would look most like a good contribution to Wikipedia, although it fails on one or more policies, such as no references, "original research", etc. A vandalism edit is an edit which, just by having it there, does not help Wikipedia in any way. This could include unhelpful/irrelevant phrases (such as "Wikipedia sucks!" or "Get a life losers" ), section blanking, creating hoaxes, blatant nonsense introduced to articles, etc.
 * }
 * How would you tell them apart? || A good faith edit would look most like a good contribution to Wikipedia, although it fails on one or more policies, such as no references, "original research", etc. A vandalism edit is an edit which, just by having it there, does not help Wikipedia in any way. This could include unhelpful/irrelevant phrases (such as "Wikipedia sucks!" or "Get a life losers" ), section blanking, creating hoaxes, blatant nonsense introduced to articles, etc.
 * }


 * 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.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Diff of good faith edits !! Approved?
 * Good Faith #1 - My own edit, I attempted to show the actual time for UTC, but the edit wasn't helpful, but it wasn't disruptive. || ✅
 * Good Faith #2 - This user did not disrupt Wikipedia a bad way, although the contributor did not maintain a NPOV. || ✅
 * Good Faith #3 - This user added good information to Wikipedia, but this user did not read WP:WWIN || ✅
 * }
 * {| class="wikitable"
 * Good Faith #3 - This user added good information to Wikipedia, but this user did not read WP:WWIN || ✅
 * }
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Diff of vandalism edits !! Approved?
 * Vandalism #1 - One of the most notable cases of vandalism on Wikipedia, This user has blanked the whole Donald Trump article and replaced it with his beliefs. || ✅
 * Vandalism #2 - This user intentionally removed content (without giving a legitimate reason) || ✅
 * Vandalism #3 - The IP adress has removed content from the whole page, and replaced it with improper humor related to the article. || ✅
 * }
 * Vandalism #3 - The IP adress has removed content from the whole page, and replaced it with improper humor related to the article. || ✅
 * }
 * }

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:


 * 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.

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.

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?
 * Because recognition by disruption and infamy is what they want. Giving them no/little attention may discourage them from vandalizing.


 * How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?
 * A good-faith editor (GFE) and a harasser have differences when "talking" to you.
 * A GFE asking why you reverted their edit would be more... calm, not threatening the user in any way. An example of a GFE asking why you reverted their edit may look like:
 * Hey [Insert username 1 here]. I noticed that you reverted one of my edits at [Insert article here], and I just can't understand why you did it. Can you explain why you reverted my edit and what I can do so it stays there? Thanks! [Insert username 2 signature here]
 * However, a harasser would be more in a sense of making threats to a user. Most of these harassers are either mad at them for something (reverted edits, edit warring, etc.) and/or because they seek revenge for what they may have done (e.g. sockpuppets of blocked/banned users). An example of a troll harassing you because of something may look something like this:
 * ''Yo bro Y you goota be so mean? I waz only tryin to do my Wiki business until you are here about to block me. I am going to come to your house and I will kill you so I don't have to bother with you and yo bad editing skillz!!! signed, [Insert username 3 signature here]

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?
 * A page should be semi-protected if vandalism/disruption/attacks occur(s) by both IP addresses and new users (users with either less than 4 days old or having only 10 total edits). If there was a recent spike in vandalism by new users/IPs in an article within a short timespace (commonly anywhere between 2-7 days), the article may be semi-protected to stop.


 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?
 * A pending changes level 1 (PCL1) should be implemented when there is slight vandalism by IPs/new users. PCL1 allows experienced editors to accept/deny edits by these users. PCL1 is a form of keeping away small amounts of vandalism while allowing new editors to edit a page. PCL1 articles may upgrade to semi-protected if either the majority of pending edits are vandalism/unconstructive or if there is a large spike in vandalism.


 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * Some pages on Wikipedia should be fully protected for different reasons. One reason would be for highly visible pages (e.g. the Main Page). Another reason would be for pages with content disputes (major edit warring), mainly because of controversial information (an example would be Metrojet Flight 9268). Other examples include mass vandalism by auto-confirmed users in a(n) (semi-protected) article. Other reasons may include common files, deletion reviews, and files permanently protected by MediaWiki.


 * In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
 * A page creation protection should be placed for non-existent articles/pages/templates/etc. so specific users cannot create some pages. This can be because it is an article repeatedly remade (despite them being deleted) (an example is Andrew Lowe). Other reasons may be users not wanting to create their userpage, but vandals creating the page as vandalism (an example is User:Sro23).


 * In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
 * Protection on talk pages may be used for blocked users/IPs, but only on rare occaisons (it would be better to (re)block the user with editing own talk page disabled). Also, protection (almost always semi-protected) to talk pages should be implemented in severe cases of vandalism.

My request for page protection on the 2016 Main page redesign... ...and the response.
 * 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.

There are a lot of reasons/circumstances why a page (mainly articles) should be speedy deleted from Wikipedia. Some of the most common of CSD criteria includes A1 (articles with no context), A3 (articles with no content), A7 (used for non-important entities, such as individuals, pets, websites, clubs, etc.), G2 (articles that seem to be test pages), G3 (articles that are obvious vandalism/hoaxes), G7 (articles requested to be deleted by user, not to be confused with U1), and G11 (promotional/spam articles).
 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?

Test page which seemed to be working on a template (this user could have done the first experiments in his/her sandbox). A7 page that did not explain credibility of subject
 * 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.