User:Some Gadget Geek/CVUA graduation

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.

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
 * 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.
 * I've enabled it a long time ago and have used it for way more than just vandalism-fighting, as my contributions page shows. Feel free to take a look! :-D

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 often made by someone new to our community who is unaware of our policies. For example, they may just be breaking the syntax of the article with a test edit, failing to provide a reliable source, or adding a spam or inappropriate link (as long as they don't do it over and over again, for that would be vandalism). On the other hand, a vandalism edit is made by someone who intentionally wants to cause damage and harm to the encyclopedia. They may do things like replace large blocks of content with gibberish, insert slang or insults into serious pages, or even create pages with nonsense or move existing pages to nonsense titles. It especially becomes clear-cut when they do it repeatedly, which shows their intent to abuse their editing privileges and can lead to a block from editing.''


 * 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.
 * Note that I have found these edits from the Simplewiki, but they are dealt with the same way as on Enwiki.
 * Good faith


 * History of Florida - this IP seemed to be only experimenting with editing
 * Rabindranath Tagore - removing the section "Shantiniketan (1901–1932)" without explaining
 * Librarian - inserting a link that does not prove the credibility of the statement
 * Vandalism


 * France - blanking the entire page and replacing it with nonsense
 * Hydrogen - inserting pejorative words, making it funny but it's not
 * Blog - making personal statements that are not encyclopedic (note: this user has been ignoring previous warnings on their talk page so it is considered vandalism)

✅

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.


 * 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.
 * ✅ Correct.

We deny recognition so that trolls and vandals will not be encouraged to continue their disruptive activity on Wikipedia. A troll would attempt to threaten me or do other harmful, un-encyclopedic actions such as providing personal information, and would not stay calm as if they were simply unaware of what has happened.
 * 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?
 * ✅ Correct.

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.

''When an article or page is prone to high levels of vandalism, edit warring, or other disruptive behaviour from unregistered or new users, particularly highly-visible templates/modules. Many of the pages listed in WP:MVP are semi-protected for this reason.''
 * In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
 * ✅ Correct.

''Best for infrequently edited articles that experience high levels of vandalism, BLP or copyright violations from unregistered or new users, while allowing such users to continue editing. This is as opposed to semi-protection which does not allow anonymous editing at all.''
 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?
 * ✅ Correct.

''Critically important templates/modules and pages, such as the Main Page. Full protection may also be used to evade disruptive edits from autoconfirmed accounts for cases when semi-protection would not do, though such cases are extremely rare and might have lead to the creation of WP:ECP.''
 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * ✅ Correct.

''If a page is repeatedly created and deleted. It may be due to inappropriate content being placed over and over again, or the topic may clearly not be notable for inclusion. I recall this was the case with Samsung Galaxy S7 before the product was officially announced.''
 * In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
 * ✅ Correct.

''Only for very grave cases of vandalism on the talk page. Talk pages are ordinarily used by users to discuss issues pertaining to the page itself and is commonly used to resolve disputes that might have resulted in the associated content page itself being protected.''
 * In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
 * ✅ Correct.

Microsoft Office - temporary semi-protection requested for persistent disruptive editing
 * Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.
 * ✅ Correct.

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.


 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?
 * To make a long story short, a page should be speedily deleted if there is no encyclopedic content on the page whatsoever - this can take a variety of forms: nonsense, vandalism, test pages. Also, pages may also be deleted for housekeeping purposes, so that they conform to our policies and that of the consensus agreed upon by the community; this is commonly the case when a page needs to be moved to a new title but another page already at that title has an edit history of multiple items and therefore cannot be moved over a redirect.
 * ✅ Correct.


 * 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.
 * Woodvinegar.org - Unremarkable company or organization
 * FNA - Malplaced disambiguation page (I have done lots of this kind of tagging recently)
 * ✅ Correct.

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).

I would leave this user alone as nothing is obviously a problem about this name - if the user's edits are problematic though it should be dealt with appropriately then.
 * DJohnson

Since this name appears to promote "L. Medical Centre" but was not made in bad faith, I would notify the user, say by placing on his talk page.
 * LMedicalCentre
 * Since LMedicalCentre appears to be the name of an organization that implies shared use, it should be reported to WP:UAA.

As the name sounds like "fuck you dick" although not spelt as such, it is obviously meant to be offensive and would need to be reported at once.
 * Fuqudik

This name could be promotional in nature as the name "Coles" appears in it, but as I would not be too sure, I would take this username to WP:RFCN.
 * ColesStaff
 * The username implies shared use and should be taken to WP:UAA.

While this name is misleading, resembling Wikipedia's signature convention, since the user might not be aware of this policy, having a discussion the user should be fine.

Here the name would mislead other Wikipedians to being an IP address and hence an anonymous user but, as with the previous entry, discussion should do.
 * 172.295.64.27

No question about this one as it is disruptive with a clear target and must be reported immediately without intervention.
 * 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?
 * It has to be vandalism. It is without doubt an intentional attack on a celebrity.
 * ✅ Correct.


 * Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?
 * WP:HOAX, for as we all know, despite numerous claims, Bieber has absolutely NO INTENTION to be gay.
 * ✅ Correct.


 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?
 * This is one of the most serious cases; one in which would be warranted without needing to assume good faith.


 * 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?
 * Never! Multiple reverts will not count if it is for clear-cut vandalism like what we see here.


 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?
 * It's an anonymous editor and for that reason IPvandal should be used to allow admins to track the owner of the address and take appropriate measures.
 * It's an anonymous editor and for that reason IPvandal should be used to allow admins to track the owner of the address and take appropriate measures.


 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
 * Here the user received an only warning template, so further abuse would be described as "vandalism after final warning".
 * ✅ Correct.

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?
 * It would obviously be good-faith. He is a new user who's almost certainly just learning how Wikipedia works.
 * ✅ Correct.


 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?
 *  would be a possibility, but since this is a new account, it might be even better to welcome them, if not already done, with, say, .
 * ✅ Correct.


 * Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?
 * The green Rollback-AGF option, which of course, assumes good faith!
 * ✅ Correct.


 * 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?
 * Depends on the severity. If it is not extremely grave vandalism, they should get at least one more chance to redeem themselves. So, generally AIV is a no-no.
 * ✅ Correct.


 * If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?
 * Why, yes. There is a reason why we have so-called WP:VOAs and a way to report them as such.
 * ✅ Correct.


 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?
 * vandal, which in this case, which would link to the user page which could itself contain inappropriate content.


 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
 * ✅ Correct.
 * As I mentioned above, there is a way (through Twinkle, in fact) to report editors like these as "actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account".
 * ✅ Correct.

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?
 * That is an example of adding WP:SPAM, so I would revert the edit using the AGF option as the account is new.
 * ✅ Correct.


 * If you do revert which warning template would you use?
 * I could use, or, if I wanted to be even friendlier, .
 * ✅ Correct.


 * Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?
 * Why not? Their promotion is just the reason to immediately tag their new page with db-g11!
 * ✅ Correct.


 * Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?
 * That's a great option, since they haven't really vandalized any pages. I would add with a reason like, "it appears to promote your company Laptops Inc. which is not allowed as per our policy".
 * ✅ Correct.


 * Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?
 * According to the Twinkle ARV tool for UAA, this particular account has made "promotional edits related to the (user)name" and thus qualifies for reporting to UAA as a "promotional username".
 * ✅ Correct.

Results
 Your Score: 52/54 (96%) - ✅