User:Synoman Barris/CVUA/F5pillar

Hello, 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

There are several sections of the training course. In some of them, will be asking you to do perform practical exercises; in others, I will ask you to read certain policies and guidelines, and then ask you some questions about their content. To be clear, it is not a problem if you give the wrong answer to any of the questions - making mistakes and discussing them is a crucial part of the learning process. For that reason, it is important that you do not attempt to find previous users' training pages in order to identify the 'right' answers to give: all your answers should be your own, so that we can identify and address any misconceptions that you might have. There is no time pressure to complete the course: we will go at whatever pace works for you, and you can take a pause or ask questions at any point along the way.
 * The CVUA curriculum

Counter-vandalism work can result in very large watchlists, which can make it more difficult to monitor pages using that alone. For this reason, I will ping you whenever I update this page with some feedback or a new task; I would also ask you to ping me when you have completed a task, so that I get a notification telling me that it's ready for review. See WP:PING for details on how to do this if you aren't sure. Megan Barris  (Lets talk📧)  19:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Communication

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. While it is often necessary to revert such edits, we treat them differently from vandalism, so it is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the tasks in this section.


 * Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.


 * a good faith edits (AGF) is an expression or comments made by an editor who intended not to hurt or attack other users without edit warring, when reverting. while
 * vandalism is an edit made by a user, either he intend to harm wikipedia projects or change a content beyond most recognition without any core or content policy to wikipedia neutral points of views.


 * In my own view, to tell them apart is knowing the quickly way of how fast and slow a vandalism edits can be made and a good faith is a different expression due to the word good and faith isn't hard or harsh words.( F5pillar ---/  'Messager🖋📩 ) 20:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting answers above, Yes, the key there is intention. Vandalism are edits made by other editors with the intention of harming the project. Other staff such as addition of original research, poorly sourced edits, poor grammar are also reverted, but we treat them as good faith edits. If you’ve already enabled Twinkle, you will realize it has three ways of reverting edits I.e Rverting outright vandalism, reverting but with a summary and reverting good faith edits. I advice you to use it wisely, remember if in doubt don’t revert. The edit warring policy also restricts editors to a maximum of three reverts when reverting edits that are not vandalism, although there are exceptions in WP:3RRNO.
 * Edits such as the one made by the IP editor yesterday were good faith and in such situations when the edit summary is genuine look at the edits you are reverting twice since breaking the WP:3RR rule is block-able, some article are also restricted to one revert per WP:1RR.

A note about Twinkle
Hopefully you'll have noticed that Twinkle allows you three options for performing a rollback - green, blue, and red links (see the screenshot). All three will revert all of the most recent consecutive edits made by a single user to a page.

Try to use these buttons where possible. The green and the blue ones allow you to add an edit summary - it's described as 'optional', but you should not treat it as such - always leave a brief edit summary, even if it's just 'Rv test edit', or 'Rv unexplained removal of content', or whatever. Use the green one when you think it's a good faith mistake, and the blue one when you're not sure. Only use the red one when you are certain that it is unambiguous vandalism - it saves time, because it leaves a generic edit summary, and all of them will take you directly to the talk page of the person you have reverted, to allow you to use the 'Warn' option to give them a warning. (Also note that you can use the brown "restore this version" button when you need to revert edits by multiple users.)Otherwise next section below:
 * Redoing botched Ping Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  06:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 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. Place diffs below

I understand this rules now. I have been using (Twinkle) to do revert and have seen those three buttons but when have already installed the (Twinkle) using visual mode. I always use rollback button than the vandalism one.

Vands

here is it;
 * diff/975167615, Added a little about his nephew which did not tally.
 * ✅ more of unsourced


 * diff/975249173, Added (2019) and that doesn't seems to makes sense.
 * test edit


 * diff/975249165, Added a letter and don't Even know what it means
 * ✅ test edit


 * diff/975249162, Typical vandalism because it's out of true.
 * ✅ Yap!


 * diff/975250222, This is an edits without references and that is not true.


 * diff/975247139, totally vandalism.
 * ✅ Unreferenced

Good faith but without the tagging:


 * diff/975095979, from my contributions history. I later found that this edit shouldn't be revert while I made mistake of it. But I think it is the only one in my contributions history.
 * It should never have been a revert, you should have checked twice.


 * diff/975125307, a good faith edits.


 * diff/975250208, Revert un- constructive edit but without (AGF)


 * click here, Trying to create in constructive edit so revert without the (good faith) tags. many reverts here happen
 * test edit


 * diff/975250979. Good faith reverts.
 * test edit

Sorry i did not arrange it but you'll understand my points there. ( F5pillar ---/  'Messager🖋📩 ) 06:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Good work above, I also realize you use mobile to revert vandalism. In counter vandalism work, computers or technologies with big screen are preferable, this is because it needs precision. Remember when reverting unsourced edits ,test edits, poor grammer,please make sure to indicate it in the edit summary.Please also reread WP:Vandalism to get a good grip of things and to understand difference between a good faith edit and vandalism . I also advice you to perform anti vandalism work with a desktop or laptop to make it easier in reversion and detection.Please take your time don’t be hasty or fast in finishing these tasks, Wikipedia has no deadline. Cheers Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  06:16, 28 August 2020 (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?


 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?


 * Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it? (Hint - read the link before answering!)


 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?


 * we warn users or Ip's users to make them know or be aware of their mistakes which might be disruptive or vandalisms edits and that would be harmful to Wikipedia projects
 * Not all edits that are reverted are disruptive or vandalism. We warn users so as to make them aware that there edits were against Wikipedia’s guidelines and policies. We tell them that what they have done has been undone, and we point them towards the relevant policies. The warnings have a couple of extra effects - they provide a logged record of escalating warnings, so that the next patroller who reverts them can see that it's not a 'first offense', and they make the admin's job easier when they are reported.
 * a process when you have warned a user or IP user using 1 level, 2 level, 3 level and final 4 level and still continues to vands, then you give him the 4im warning.
 * 4im warnings are meant to be the only and last warning. It is mostly used when vandalism or disruption by a user is excessive such as adding racism or sexual tags in a BLP e.t.c. Twinkle
 * You shouldn't substitute a templates that is already in a users talk page because it's a linkage to what type of discussion users had been receiving. When (Twinkle) direct you to users talk page after using it to revert with the (rollback AGF button). You'll completely see all his discussion and when you copy all the text there and paste your own written text, then published it. the previous ones there will be clean up, yours there will be available.
 * All templates in user talk namespace including user warnings should be substituted by adding subst: after the opening braces of the template. Twinkle does this automatically. Please read WP:SUBST to understand more on why warnings in user talk are substituted.

"I have made this mistake six times without knowing what am doing, i even got block for 1 day, i thought may be it was from the (Twinkle) that is leading me to that mistake but now i have understand how to use it very well"
 * If he continues to vands without obeying or accepting the ideas, then best idea for me is to reports them to WP Admin notice board for vandalism.
 * ✅ yap if vandalism continues after the final warning or 4im report straight to AIV.

( F5pillar ---/  'Messager🖋📩 ) 12:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good work averagely. Next task below Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  15:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Task
Please reread WP:WARN, before taking this task
 * Do some recent changes patrolling sand find some vandalism, revert and warn. Provide seven diff of the warnings left on the talk page of the user

"Hi . I drop this. hope you'll be back soon."
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/976233769, I restored. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/976233885, welcoming templates,, via (Twinkle)


 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/976233028, I revert, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/976232236, Caution: Addition of defamatory content, via (Twinkle).


 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/976229028, I reverts, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/976229656, No citations for understanding, General note: Introducing factual errors, using (Twinkle).


 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/975878907, I reverts, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/975879810, Unsourced warning, without using (Twinkle)


 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/975880010, I reverts, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/975881022, disruptive template warning,,  without using (Twinkle)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/Special:MobileDiff/976485192, I restored, edit doesn't seems to be OK, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2606:6000:6106:2100:35F0:B184:E3BC:948C#September_2020, edit testing warning, via (Twinkle)
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/976484335, manual undo by other IP user then,  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/Special:MobileDiff/975418296, I sent warning,  via Twinkle


 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/976519793, I restored it back. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/976521767, removing of maintenance templates warning . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/976520676, welcome message via Twinkle   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/976520840, standard welcome message, via Twinkle

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/976550228, reverts 2. (Twinkle) didn't appeared quick, so I restored it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/Special:MobileDiff/976550912, sent unsourced warning via Twinkle
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/976550103, reverts 1
 * Good job, I see you have some grasp of using warning templates. I am still worried of using mobile in counter vandalism work. Let’s move on to the next task Megan☺️  Talk to the monster  12:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. For each revert/warning please fill in a line on the table below.


 * Hi, . some are not vandalism but I just include them, thus is to hard to find vands due to (Bot) operations in recent changes patrolling. ( F5pillar ---/  'Messager🖋📩 ) 19:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Most edits above, weren’t vandalism, please don’t revert mere removal of content unless you have knowledge of the subject or it’s pure vandalism. Megan☺️   Talk to the monster  15:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

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. 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 process where significant vandalism or disruption edits from IP user or new users and or prevent block, sockpuppets blocked or banned user from editing. eg, BLP with a recent high level of media interest.


 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?
 * Violations of BLP, copyright violations or Persistent vands.
 * Yes, but semi also applies in those situations. It is a better alternative to semi-protection when a page is prone to less vandalism. It allows good faith editors to make changes to an article, but will be visible to the public unless reviewed by a pending changes reviewer


 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * I think a process where much blatant vandalism or disruption edits is occurring with a frequency level, so it's require to be use just to stop it.
 * Nope,it is applied when there is edit warring or content disputes among established accounts


 * In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
 * If a page is deleted and repeatedly created by one user eg, sockpuppets or even not. The page which is deleted may be bad one and recreation continuously.
 * ✅ Yep

Article talkpage semi-protected; If request is done on it talk page with a valid reason provided or limited duration in the most severe (serious) cases of vandalism.
 * In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
 * user talk page semi-protected? Severe (serious) abuse or vands, that is in users talkpage and may be protected if request is done by the user himself under consideration if a reason is provided.
 * Fair enough


 * Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request at WP:RPP below. (Note - it might take you a while to come across a circumstance where this is required - we can continue with the next section of the course before you do this, but when the need arises please post here and ping me).
 * Here is this one, a user continuously- disrupting and removing of content in this BLP, a temporary protect request. diff/991277225. sorry to ping you.  Mr-5  / M ✉  /   C🖋 06:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Overall fair work, I am still concerned that you haven’t read policies and guidelines I provide you before a task. Otherwise next task below and comments above Megan☺️   Talk to the monster  07:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * . Really I do applied my understanding way that why you might see it different but i read the guidelines provided very well. ( F5pillar ---/  'Messager🖋📩 ) 17:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.


 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?
 * The list of criteria in this link here explains it well so if it meets the criteria of deletion listed here then (CSD) 'ASAP'

Speedy deletion examples
In past iterations of this course, students have been asked to 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 going to ask you to say how you would act in a set of hypothetical scenarios. What would you do if you saw the page listed in each scenario? Note that 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
 * A7 and G10 will be applied, I will tag this with this CSD template 'ASAP' bcuz it is a pure attack
 * ✅ Yep

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 will tag this under G11
 * ✅ Pure promotion

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 think of A7 and of G11 might be considered bcuz I'm thinking he is promoting himself
 * ✅ Yeah this is an A7, though the bar for A7 is lower

A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content: Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame 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. I've borrowed his example here. Hint: Try Google searching a few key terms from this short article.)
 * Scenario 4
 * this one would be G3 bcuz it looks soo funny with the write up, like discussion- merely I can't find more of something better while searching. I can merge the article with one of the pages were its mentioned
 * No, this isn't an G3.It's also not an A7 - if he is in a hall of fame somewhere, that's a credible claim of significance. The best thing to do here is to consider alternatives to deletion - if you'd searched for the name, you'd have found out that Bazz Ward is mentioned in our article on The Nice - you could have replaced the text with a redirect to that article. Then, if someone comes to Wikipedia and searches for Bazz Ward, at least they'll find out some information about him - which is better than deleting the page.

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?
 * Scenario 5


 * All Rights Reserved does not matters in WP bcuz it's agreed to be under the CC 3.0 license, this is copyright violation so I will do this under G12
 * ✅ possible copyvio, but make sure you confirm this via copyright tools such as EarWig’s

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language. ✅ A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
 * Scenario 6
 * (Not English) Temp should be used instead of deletion or except if it does not exist in any other existing languages wiki of Wikipedia then I will use A2 for it. But if it does, I will try requesting for it translation into English language bcuz I don't think if the page has more search write up in Google to be deleted if may be notability is understand
 * Scenario 7
 * 20 minutes, but before that I will be studying movements in the page
 * You didn’t identify what you would do?

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?
 * Scenario 8
 * I can only leave this if it was in his own userpage but for namespace 'ASAP' (under G1)
 * ✅ Yep
 * Good work above, next section below Megan☺️   Talk to the monster  13:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Revision Deletion and Oversight
Please read WP:Revdel and WP:Oversight.

Occasionally, vandalism will be so extreme that it needs to be removed from publicly accessible revision histories - the criteria for these are described in the policies linked above. Revision deletion hides the edit from anyone except admins; oversight provides an even greater level of restriction, with only oversighters able to see the comments. The threshold between the two is quite fine - I've been on the wrong side of it a few times. If you are in doubt as to whether revdel or oversight is required, the best bet is to forward it to the oversight team - whoever reviews it will be able to make the decision and act on it.


 * If you believe an edit needs to be revision deleted, how would you request that?
 * contact an admin via IRC
 * If you believe that it's so serious it needs oversight, how would you request that?
 * The fast way is the IRC or email: oversight team or admins. In the revdel channel post the diff and type; admin, or oversight but no needs to post the diff for oversight till he replies then private message before diffs. That is the only two fast way. ( F5pillar ---/  'Messager🖋📩 ) 16:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)