User:Thanoscar21/CVUA/WikiWolf7

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. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 14:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Communication

RedWarn & Twinkle
RedWarn and Twinkle are very useful tools when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:RedWarn and WP:TWINKLE. Please note, I'll only be using Twinkle for WP:CSD, which will come later in the course.
 * Enable Twinkle and RedWarn (if you haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.

I have enabled Twinkle and RedWarn. What's next? WikiWolf7 (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , all good, next section below. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 20:14, 9 February 2021 (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. 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.

The difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit is that of intent. A good faith edit is a genuine attempt to improve Wikipedia, while vandalism is a clear attempt to damage it. A good faith edit may sometimes need to be removed, because of an honest mistake, for example, because the writer was unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. When a user vandalizes an article, it is not unintentional, and that is one of the key differences. A method to differentiate one from the other is the nature of the edit. If the edit is, say, the addition of an insult, blanking a page without a reason, or adding a string of random letters, it is probably vandalism. For a good faith edit, perhaps in an article about a town, a user adds something they know(or believe to be true) because they live there. Even though the fact may be true, there is not a reliable source backing it up, as original research is not allowed, so it is removed. Perhaps this person was unaware of that. A good faith edit will clearly attempt to add information, while vandalism will not. WikiWolf7 (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Place diffs below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_Heffernan&diff=prev&oldid=1005669141

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oregon_Trail&diff=prev&oldid=1005637479

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiger%27s_eye&diff=prev&oldid=1005874636
 * ❌ — This is probably good faith.

Good Faith

\https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colm_O%27Rourke&diff=prev&oldid=1005586589

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raffle&diff=prev&oldid=1005409107

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bucky_Badger&type=revision&diff=1005856449&oldid=1005856395
 * ❌, I'd revert as vandalism.


 * , mostly good, do see my notes, next section below. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 22:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Warning and reporting
When you use RedWarn 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 note that most of this is automated on RedWarn; you'll need to pick this only if you use Twinkle.


 * Please answer the following questions:
 * Why do we warn users?

To notify a user that they have violated Wikipedia policy, and that their edit has been removed. WikiWolf7 (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

When the vandalism is extreme or numerous. WikiWolf7 (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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!)

Yes, you should always substitute a template. This is because if the template changes, if you subtituted it, what you placed on the page will not change. You substitute by writing subst:uw-template1 instead of uw-template1. WikiWolf7 (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


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

Report them to administrator intervention against vandalism. WikiWolf7 (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2021 (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. If you have trouble with the wiki markup, tell me and we'll get it sorted out.

Should I put a diff of the revert and the warning? WikiWolf7 (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , just the diff of the revert would be fine. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 00:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Completed. WikiWolf7 (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , all good! Next section below. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 02:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

A note about RedWarn
Hopefully you'll have noticed that RedWarn 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. The orange button should only be used when a user blanks a large portion of the page without an edit summary.

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 purple "restore this version" button when you need to revert edits by multiple users.)

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 RedWarn menu (on the right-hand side, the RPP option) to request page protection or the Twinkle speedy deletion (the TW menu next to the search bar on top, the CSD option).

Protection
Please read the protection policy.


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

A page is semi-protected when it has experienced high levels of vandalism from unregistered and new users. WikiWolf7 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


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

Pages with high levels of vandalism but are more infrequently edited should be pending changes protectedWikiWolf7 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

A page should be fully protected if it has constantly been vandalised by extended-confirmed users. WikiWolf7 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * - and edit warring.


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

A page should be creation protected if it is removed, but has repeatedly been returned. WikiWolf7 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


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

A talk page should be semi-protected only for a limited duration, and only in cases of severe vandalism to the page. WikiWolf7 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=1006181480
 * , all good! Next section below. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 18:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fix ping. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 18:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fix ping. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 18:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.


 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

, A page should be speedy deleted when it clearly meets one or more of the criteria, saving time by bypassing discussion. WikiWolf7 (talk)`

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

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

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

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

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

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.
 * Scenario 6

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
 * Scenario 7

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