User:Mz7/CVUA/Mosrod

Hello Mosrod, 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 in your answers, 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.

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.
 * How to use this page


 * Feedback key

When leaving feedback, I'll sometimes use the following symbols.

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.

A good faith edit is an edit with the intentions of helping Wikipedia and are not to deliberately cause harm or damage. A vandalism edit is made when a person wants to harm Wikipedia, or damage and ruin the information on it. You can tell vandalism apart because if a person is using bad words, wanting to be destructive and harmful to a page, adding spam or random characters intentionally, or being malicious and purposely adding false or inappropriate text to pages deliberately. You can tell a good faith edit apart because if a person is accidentally adding false information wanting to improve the article, users confused with Wikipedia, test edits, or a user is trying to improve Wikipedia.
 * ✅ Good, the key is intention. A common mistake by newcomers is assuming that because an edit is unhelpful, it is necessarily also vandalism. However, when we accuse someone of vandalism, we are also making a statement that they intended to damage Wikipedia, which is not always the case with unhelpful or damaging edits. Theoretically, a user could break hundreds of pages, but if they did it with the intention of helping, then it is not vandalism and should therefore be handled differently. Mz7 (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

877957042 John Cabot is a good faith edit because the user is trying to improve Wikipedia, but instead of adding a comment to the talk page, they added it to the article. This person was trying to be helpful and didn't want to cause harm to Wikipedia.
 * 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
 * I think it's OK to assume good faith here, but I would also not have objected too loudly if you had put this under the vandalism column. Mz7 (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

877967109 The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas is a good faith edit because the user is describing the film and trying to improve Wikipedia, but they didn't put it in the correct spot.
 * There is no character in this novel named Wolfie, if I recall correctly, so I would say that this was probably vandalism, but when in doubt, it's okay to assume good faith. Mz7 (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

877969709 The Script is a good faith edit because the user is describing the person's age, which is not distributive and improving Wikipedia, but the person's age and does not belong after the person's name.
 * ✅ Additionally, the information is unsourced, and per WP:BLP we require sources for sensitive biographical details like age. Mz7 (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

877956063 Magic sand is a vandalism edit, which has intentionally adding bad words and wanting to cause damage to Wikipedia.
 * Vandalism
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

877962043 From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler is a vandalism edit because there was disruptive text added and wanted to damage Wikipedia.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

877964860 Hero Fiennes-Tiffin is a vandalism edit because there was a purposely misspelled name with bad words in it
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Good work in this section. I thought you might have been a little too conservative about calling things vandalism, but in the end, it's better to be too conservative than to be too liberal in making vandalism accusations. In the future, do you think you could add links to the diffs, instead of just listing the numbers? This would make it easier and faster for me to review them. You can do so by simply adding the number like this: Special:Diff/877957042. Let me know if you have questions! Mz7 (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'l add links to the diffs; I didn't know you could do that.

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.

We warn users to notify them that they broke the rules, so they are aware of why their edits were reverted and so they can learn from their mistakes.
 * Please answer the following questions:
 * Why do we warn users?
 * ✅ Yeah, the primary goal is education. I suspect that many of the gibberish edits we get on Wikipedia are really just readers testing the "edit" button – "can I really edit this page?". We want to let these users know that Wikipedia really can be edited, and the edits they're submitting really are unhelpful, and direct them to resources if possible. Another relevant issue is that due to the volume of vandalism and disruptive editing we get, it is not even remotely feasible for administrators to issue blocks to all of them, even if it is clear that they aren't here to contribute to the encyclopedia. In general, a lot of vandals stop after being warned, so we want to reserve blocking as a last resort option. Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

A level 4im warning would be appropriate for a user makes a big, bad faith, edit to Wikipedia that does not follow guidelines, is very disruptive to Wikipedia and wants to keep on damaging it.
 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
 * Sort of. A level 4im is appropriate when you encounter particularly egregious vandalism, e.g. hate speech against a specific living individual or other kind of malicious content. A level 4im might also be appropriate if a user is vandalizing at a particularly high speed across a variety of articles. Basically, it is for vandalism that needs to stop immediately, hence 4im. Regular, common vandalism does not need a level 4im warning. Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

You should substitute a template when there is a template that you don't want the page impacted when it is edited, or when you want to edit the text of the template. You should also substitute for unprotected templates to limit the damage caused by them.
 * Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?
 * ✅ I think you have the right idea. You substitute the template message so that the message you send to the user stays the same over time. If you had transcluded the templated message onto a talk page instead of substituting it, then if you edit the template a few months later, then the talk page message you sent would change. This is undesirable because it means you could be changing the meaning of your message when you didn't intend to do so. Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If a person with a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again, you should report them to Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism or use Twinkle TW -> ARV.
 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * ✅ Great. Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Good work. I've added your next assignment below. It's a bit more hands-on than past assignments, so please feel free to take your time to work through it. If you have any questions whatsoever, don't hesitate to ask me. That's what I'm here for. Mz7 (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

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. In addition to manually going through Special:RecentChanges, 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. Here are a few.

Twinkle
Twinkle, as you know, is very useful. 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, WP:SPI, and other administrative noticeboards.

User creation log
In my early days of fighting vandalism on Wikipedia, one of the strategies I would use to find vandalism was to patrol the account creation log. This is located at Special:Log/newusers, and it logs every time a new user account is created on Wikipedia. You'll notice that new accounts with no contributions so far will have a red "contribs" links, whereas new accounts with some contributions will have blue "contribs" links. One great way not only to find vandalism, but welcome new users to Wikipedia is to check the blue contribs links that come in.

Edit filter log
Special:AbuseLog is the edit filter log. Every time you and everyone else submit an edit to Wikipedia, your edits are checked against hundreds of filters to make sure they aren't disruptive. These filters look for common vandalism patterns (e.g. adding profanity), and if a filter returns a hit, it gets logged in Special:AbuseLog.

In addition to logging, the edit filter can also trigger specific actions; namely, filters can show a warning to the user or even disallow an edit from going through entirely. Even if an edit is disallowed, it is sometimes useful to look at the editor's contributions to see if there was other vandalism not caught by the filter. The template warning series {{subst:uw-attempt2}}, {{subst:uw-attempt3}}, and {{subst:uw-attempt4}} are also useful against edits disallowed by the edit filter (there's no level 1 in this series, for some reason).

STiki
STiki is an application that you download to your computer, and it provides you with diffs which either it or User:ClueBot NG have scored on their possibility of being uncontructive, and you are given the option to revert it as vandalism, revert it assuming good faith, mark it as innocent, or abstain from making a judgment on the diff. In order to use STiki, you need one of the following: (1) the rollback permission, (2) at least 1000 article edits (in the article namespace, not talk/user pages), or (3) special permission via Wikipedia talk:STiki.

Huggle
Huggle is also an application you download to your computer which presents you diffs (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. The rollback permission is required to use Huggle.

Finding and reverting vandalism

 * Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Try to include at least one AIV report. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below.

I completed the chart. Mosrod (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I redid the chart Mosrod (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I can only apologize. It has been far too long since I last updated you on this course. My real life has gotten considerably busier. Wow, I looked through all of your diffs, and they all contain vandalism that resulted in a block. Great work! I will answer the questions that you submitted to my user talk page now. Mz7 (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Answers to your questions
A few days ago, you submitted a set of questions on my user talk page. I will attempt to answer them now.

Mz7 (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) How do you set permission levels (not automatically)?
 * 2) * I'm not sure what you mean here. If you are referring to how administrators set user access levels, we do so through an interface at Special:UserRights.
 * 3) Is a level one warning indicating a AGF edit?
 * 4) * Not necessarily. A level one warning is friendlier and less accusatory. It sometimes assumes good faith, but I sometimes send one to vandals whom I'm pretty sure are bad faith to try to convince them to stop. It helps to read the text of the warning before you send it, just so you know the message is truly the one you want to send to the user.
 * 5) If it was obvious vandalism, do you warn the user with a one first (how to change this in Huggle)?
 * 6) * My personal workflow on Huggle is to warn level-by-level, going from 1 to 4, but I know that some other editors and admins disagree, and they are willing to report and block after a couple warnings. I think there is a way to send a specific level warning in Huggle, but personally, if I wanted to do this, I would use the "revert only" button, then send a warning using Twinkle (there is a button that lets you open the diff in your browser – extremely useful button).
 * 7) How do I order the vandalism queue from worst score to best?
 * 8) * The queue should automatically do this for you.
 * 9) What is the difference between disruptive editing vs vandalism(is disruptive editing only edit warring)?
 * 10) * We covered this in several weeks ago. "Disruptive editing" is any pattern of editing which goes against Wikipedia's goals of producing a quality encyclopedia – "disruptive editing" can either be good faith or bad faith. Edit warring is a kind of disruptive editing, but disruptive editing doesn't have to be edit warring. Similarly, vandalism is a specific kind of disruptive editing in which a user intentionally harms Wikipedia. For example, if an editor is being extremely rude to another user, violating WP:CIVIL, one could say this is disruptive, but since the user is not intending to harm Wikipedia, it is not "vandalism". This distinction is perhaps the most critical thing you need to know for this course – if you take away nothing else, please make sure you take away this. If you are confused by my explanation, please let me know and I would be happy to clarify it.

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 when there is significant vandalism, edit warring or vandalism from IP-Hopping unregistered users, and disruption on talk pages.
 * ✅ Good. Specifically, it should be done only when blocking would be insufficient or impractical. Mz7 (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


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

A page should be pending changes level 1 protected on a lowly edited page that has persistent vandalism or BLP or copyright violations
 * ✅ Good, in my view, the key for favoring pending changes protection over semi-protection is low editing rate. If there is slow moving vandalism, especially on a biography of a living person, pending changes lets us catch that vandalism before it is seen by readers and harms our reputation. Mz7 (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

A page should be fully protected when there is edit-warring from confirmed and auto confirmed users,
 * ✅ Edit warring is definitely the most common impetus for full protection, but it has been done in rare cases for vandalism too where extended confirmed protection fails. Mz7 (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


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

A page should be salted when a bad article was deleted but recreated.
 * Right, but it should be repeatedly recreated. I think in general a good rule of thumb is 3 creations, but admins can use their discretion and salt only after one recreation. Mz7 (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


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

A talk page should be semi-protected when there is vandalism/abuse from ip's and unconfirmed users.
 * The standard for protecting a talk page is much higher. There needs to be evidence of egregious vandalism or abuse to protect a talk page. Mz7 (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


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

Drum and bass: special:diff/882744564, Acceptance Diff: special:diff/882763054
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.


 * In general, in what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

A page should be speedy deleted when there is an obvious reason for deletion, there is no reason to keep it up/uncontroversial, and there is a speedy deletion criteria that relates to the page.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I finished the protection and speedy deletion questions. Also, how do you sign a non-talk page?, whenever I put the tildes, it only puts the date. Mosrod (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I'm so sorry that I did not see your response here until now. If it is taking a while for me to respond, it's likely I just didn't see it for some reason. Make sure to leave me a message on my user talk page next time. To answer your question, the four tildes should work: . Make sure that you are putting four tildes and not five. Five generates just the date only. I'm going to respond to your speedy deletion and protection answers now. Mz7 (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion examples
In past iterations of this course, I have had mentees go out and actually tag pages for deletion, but with the introduction of WP:ACPERM, the amount of straight vandalism that gets created directly in mainspace has reduced dramatically. As such, I'm now having mentees answer a set of hypothetical scenarios. What would you do if you saw the page listed in each scenario? Not all scenarios may warrant speedy deletion.

A user with the username "BobSucks" creates an article called "John Smith" that contains solely the following text: John Smith is the worst elementary school teacher on the planet.
 * Scenario 1

I would tag the article for G10 CSD and report their username.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A user with the username "GoodTimesLLC" creates a user page with the following text: Good Times LLC is an organization dedicated to helping your children get the highest quality education at an affordable price. Visit our website at goodtimes.info and contact us at 123-456-7890.
 * Scenario 2

I would tag the article for G11 CSD and talk to them about changing their username.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A user creates an article titled "Edward Gordon" with the following text: Edward Gordon (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 5,000 subscribers on YouTube.
 * Scenario 3

I would check to see if Edward Gordon is a noble person, and if there isn't, I will nominate the article for A7 CSD. I would also make it more NPOV and make the text more specific.
 * Haha "noble" person – I think you meant notable person. Mz7 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content: Bazz Ward was a great roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz. (Attribution: came up with this scenario as a question to an old RfA candidate. Since my creativity sucks, I've borrowed his example here. Hint: Try Google searching a few key terms from this short article.)
 * Scenario 4

I would nominate it for A7 CSD
 * This was a hard one. A7 is definitely understandable, but a Google search for "bazz ward lemmy" finds that Bazz Ward was once a roadie with the English band The Nice. A redirect to The Nice would also be an acceptable option. The intent of this scenario was to see your thought process and whether you might Google search the terms to change your response. Mz7 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A user creates an article that was clearly copied and pasted directly from another website, which states "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom of it. Would your answer be the same if it didn't state "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom? I would speedy delete it for G12 CSD. If it didn't state All Rights Reserved, I would search the text online, and if it matches, issue G12 CSD.
 * Scenario 5
 * The answer would actually be the same, CSD G12, if it didn't say All Rights Reserved. Only if the website explicitly states that the content is freely licensed in a manner compatible with Wikipedia (in accordance with WP:Copyrights) are we allowed to copy content verbatim. Mz7 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language. I would use the notenglish template, which will ping translation teams. If the article already exists in another Wikipedia project, I would tag it for A2 CSD
 * Scenario 6
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content. I would tag it for A3 CSD
 * Scenario 7
 * In order for a speedy deletion nomination to hold, the speedy deletion criteria must apply to all revisions in a page's history, not just the most recent one. In this case, one could revert the user to avoid A3 speedy deletion. The correct answer here is WP:CSD. Mz7 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A new user creates a user page with nothing but the following content: Jlakjrelekajroi3j192809jowejfldjoifu328ur3pieisgreat How would this scenario be different if the page was created in a different namespace? I wouldn't do anything if it was in their namespace. If it was in a different namespace, I would tag it for G1 CSD
 * Scenario 8
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mz7: I finished the assignment

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). If you need more information before deciding what to do, explain what more you need.

I would ask the user to create a new account because there are many people with D Johnson in their name
 * DJohnson
 * Editing with a real name is totally fine. Unless this user is trying to impersonate a famous person through their actions, then I would allow this username. Mz7 (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I would talk to the user and encourage them to create a new account because it is promotional and represents a company
 * LMedicalCentre
 * How would your answer change if you looked at their contributions and saw clear promotional edits? Mz7 (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I would report them to AIAV for promotional edits(advert template)

I would report the user to Usernames for Administrator Attention since they are trying to impersonate Girth Summit (I needed to search Google for the username to see if it existed)
 * G1rth Summ1t
 * ✅ Oops! I made this one up when I was teaching Girth Summit through CVUA. Forgot to change this to M0sr0d or something. Nowadays we actually have an anti-spoof system that prevents people from creating usernames that are too similar to existing ones, but sometimes things slip through. Mz7 (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't do anything about it since it is allowed to have an account name that denotes and individual person
 * JoeAtBurgerKing
 * ✅ This is the right answer per WP:ISU. Think also about how your response here contradicts your response for "DJohnson". Mz7 (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I would report it to Usernames for Administrator Attention because it an offensive username
 * Mz7IsALoser
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I would report the user to Usernames for Administrator Attention because the account implies that they are SysOp which the person isn't
 * JoeTheSysop
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I would tell them to create a new account or rename theirs because it is a non-script username
 * What would you do if they did not respond and kept editing? Mz7 (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I would report them to Usernames for Administrator Attention

I finished the assignment


 * I apologize for the delay again. I've added some follow-up questions above. Check them out when you get the chance. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I finished the questions you asked me.