User:Theopolisme/CVUA/Thekillerpenguin

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.

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.

The start
As you are some what of a special case - as you've already been instructed a bit by Jeff, so if I go over anything you've already learned, please let me know! On to the fun stuff - as you want help mainly with Twinkle, that's what we'll focus on - but I'd still like to start off a bit broad and delve deeper into Twinkle from there. Thanks, and have fun!

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 was made in good faith, i.e. not intentionally being disruptive, and a vandalism edit was made in bad faith, which means they meant to hurt the encyclopedia.

It may be hard to tell the two apart, but generally good faith edits may show a lack of understanding of our policies, rather than bad intent. This is evident by the wording ("JOHN DOE SUKKKKSS" vs. "John Doe was rated poorly at the Foo Idol competition"). Thekillerpenguin    (talk)   20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sounds good! As soon as you can drop those diffs in below, we can move on. Thanks! :)  Theopolisme TALK 06:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: I think test edits are in good faith unless they keep on doing them after warnings. While not being disruptive, the edit is unsourced and not notable, showing that they don't know about the notability policy. Still, it was made in good faith. While not helpful, it was most likely made in good faith, but it was made by a person unfamiliar with the fact that here, we don't send people to facebook for more info. Thekillerpenguin     (talk)   20:54, 24 July 2012 (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.
 * Good faith

  Thekillerpenguin    (talk)   20:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Vandalism


 * ✅ Looks good! Now, on to a bit more Twinkle-y stuff, namely about warning and reporting vandals.  Theopolisme TALK 21:16, 24 July 2012 (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:UWUL.

We warn users, rather than blocking on sight, because we want to give them a chance to reform. Many Wikipedians started as vandals, and many have become constructive editors. ✅ - how true! I know many an admin who was first templated.  Theopolisme TALK 22:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC) When a user has done a lot of vandalism without any warnings (my rule of thumb is at least 4 instances) and they really need to stop.
 * Please answer the following questions:
 * Why do we warn users?
 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

✅  Theopolisme TALK 22:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC) If so, the vandal should be reported to the admins at AIV.
 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?

✅  Theopolisme TALK 22:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC) 1st: Hello, I'm Thekillerpenguin. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Probably the most common one, this is used to warn users who make nonconstructive edits/vandalism. ✅  Theopolisme TALK 22:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Quick question, do these warnings have to be in the same series?
 * Please give examples of three different warnings that you might need to use while vandal patrolling and explain what they are used for.
 * What do you mean by the same series? --> most of them are UW-something, yes... But I don't think I understand your question.  Theopolisme TALK 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What I mean is, do and  count as different warnings? Thekillerpenguin    (talk)   21:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They are each different level warnings - you go up a level (or to a final warning if it is severe) each time a user is warned.. so, you first put a warning, and the second time they do it -->  ... etc, etc. Make sense?  Theopolisme  TALK 21:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Uhhh, what I meant is that here, theoretically, could I put Template:uw-vandalism1, Template:uw-vandalism2, and Template:uw-vandalism1 as my three different warnings for this assignment? Thekillerpenguin    (talk)   22:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it - I know you know user warnings! Go ahead and move on.  Theopolisme TALK 22:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

✅ Great answers.  Theopolisme TALK 22:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Posts the diffs of those warnings below.

Some edits that seem like vandalism can be test edits. This happens when a new user is experimenting and ends up making accidental unconstructive edits. Generally, these should be treated with good faith, especially if it is their first time, and warned gently.  ✅ Good!  Theopolisme TALK 01:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Find an edit which could be a test edit and revert it. Warn the user with the most appropriate template, then post the diff below.

If an editor continues to vandalise after a final warning (level 3, or 4im), they can be reported to AIV, where an administrator will consider the report and may block them. This is a final step when warning a user is proving insufficient. There is further advice at WP:GAIV.


 * Report 2 users to AIV and post the diffs below. Be sure to follow the guidelines and only report users where necessary; do not report simply for the sake of this task.

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.

If we do, then it tells them that their "hard work" *cough cough* has not been in vain, and has come to fruition. Not what we want here. Basically, they would know that their work has been noticed. ✅ I like this quotes on hard work. :)  Theopolisme TALK 11:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Trolls generally use especially inflammatory language, and after you give them your explanation, they still try to harass you. Even if good faith editors at first use somewhat inflammatory language, once they understand, they drop the stick. Good faith editors usually understand and move on, with little or no harassment to you.   Thekillerpenguin     (talk)   01:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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?

✅ Thanks for fixing it - good! Next big(ish) section below...

Protection and speedy deletion
Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent vandalism. Only an administrator can protect or delete pages; however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion of 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 WP:PROTECT.

If there is a lot of vandalism over a extended period of time, i.e., not stopping. In large content disputes in order to force the parties into discussion, if there is a massive amount of vandalism from lots of autoconfirmed users, or to protect generic file names.
 * In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?


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

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.

If it meets the CSD criteria, it should be deleted. Thekillerpenguin    (talk)   00:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)  
 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?
 * Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons) and post the diff below.
 * Welcome back! I'd missing seeing you around here. I truly think you're quite ready to "skip ahead" some of the mundane lessons - would you be up to working through a final exam? If there are things you're unclear on, we can go back to them, of course. Sound alright?  Theo polisme  00:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll finish this assignment, maybe another, and then I think we can go ahead to the exam.  Thekillerpenguin     (talk)   21:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan.  Theo polisme  01:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Usernames
Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol theUser creation log to check for new users with inappropriate usernames. There are four broad categories 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).


 * DJohnson


 * This one would probably be OK unless the user is trying to impersonate a famous person.


 * LMedicalCentre


 * As for this one, it breaches the promotional aspect because it represents a company/organization.


 * Fuqudik


 * This one's offensive. If you pronounce it, you get something like "F!@# your D@#$"


 * ColesStaff


 * Promotional. This represents a position at a company/organization, so by extension, this is promotional.




 * Misleading in a way. This could screw up the signature format, and it looks confusing.


 * 172.295.64.27


 * Misleading. Usernames are not supposed to look like IP addresses.  Thekillerpenguin     (talk)   03:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

While I'm inclined to agree ;), this still is offensive to other editors/people.
 * Bieberisgay

✅ Good work!  Theo polisme  11:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

One more for you:


 * AnnaAtWalgreens
 * This one would most likely fall under the promotional category. Although this represents an individual, they are still showing themselves as a member of the staff, still not allowed.  Thekillerpenguin     (talk)   05:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This was tricky one - I actually didn't know the correct answer until recently! Take a look at this for the answer.  Theo polisme  10:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thekillerpenguin    (talk)   03:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)'
 * Heh, oh well. :) Want another lesson, or ready to tackle the "big bad monitoring period"/"final exam"?  Theo polisme  21:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to be bold and charge straight to the exam, so one more lesson would be great if it won't be too hard on you. I'm actually getting fond of them...   Thekillerpenguin     (talk)   23:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fantastic - I'll get to writing one momentarily.  Theo polisme  04:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Rollback
I've really already finished covering the basics of counter-vandalism, and have been looking through your edits (extensively) for the past fews days. In, any case, I think you're ready to request rollback -- but first:

The rollback button can be used to revert a vandal's edits on an article if they are a lot, which is tedious to do if you just use undo. However, it may only be used to revert vandalism-nothing else.
 * Describe when the rollback button may be used, as well as what it actually does.

On an unrelated note, what is the difference between Twinkle's rollback and the normal rollback, in terms of what it does? Thekillerpenguin    (talk)   06:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no difference at all, actually. Rather, the difference is system-wise — rollback uses the Mediawiki API to revert, whereas Twinkle 'grabs' the contents of the previous revision and 'pastes' that into your current edit field...if that makes sense. — Theo polisme  21:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I get you, but if they do the same thing (in terms of practical application), what is the point of the actual rollback userright?  Thekillerpenguin     (talk)   04:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

✅ Great! — Theo polisme  21:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Request rollback user rights at WP:PERM/R and wait for an admin to grant it (keep in mind that this is not a reward, that it can take a while for an admin to view the request and that it can be removed at any time, by any admin).


 * Complete this task if and when rollback is granted. Rollback (using the button) three edits and leave appropriate warnings on the user's talk page. Please include the diffs of the revert, and of the warning.
 * 1.
 * 2.
 * 3.

Sorry for the long hiatus. I've been incredibly busy over the past few months. Thekillerpenguin    (talk)   04:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all, I understand. Great work as usual. Ready for your final? I don't even really think that it's necessary, given all the experience you've accumulated, but I'd still be happy to administer it.  Theopolisme ( talk )  10:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll go with the final. You know, for the record, and I suppose that test has become sort of a rite/ritual/tradition now. We might as well formalize things.   Thekillerpenguin     (talk)   05:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Final Exam
When responding to numbered questions please start your response with "#:" (except where shown otherwise with **). You don't need to worry about signing your answers.

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (25%)

 * For each of these examples, please state whether an edit is vandalism or good faith (please also include a brief reason).
 * 1) A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article.
 * This would be rather situational, although I would be leaning toward vandalism. By situational, I would mean that it is possible, although not that likely, that this is a new user trying out the editing functions. That said, if it was a test edit, it probably would be something more harmless, like inserting spaces or stuff like that. So I'm leaning toward Vandalism, very small chance to be a test edit


 * 1) A user adds their signature over and over into an article.
 * Also somewhat situational. If it's only a few times, and the signature isn't anything obscene or anything, I'd lean toward a good-faith test. However, if you mean by "over and over" as in the sense that it is a really large amount, then I'd treat it like vandalism and revert it accordingly. Final verdict: Vandalism


 * 1) A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article.
 * Hmmm, this one made me think for a little bit. I'd say this is a good faith edit. Sure, it's not encyclopedic, since, well, it's an opinion and can't be proven. However, the wording suggest that it was made by a somewhat clueless person not exactly knowing what you can put in Wikipedia, and since it was probably made in good faith, I'd say it's a Good faith edit, but should be reverted.


 * 1) A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article.
 * Totally a test. Besides the actual statement in the edit itself referring to the edit as a test edit, it doesn't exactly cross the boundary for vandalism. Final verdict: Test edit, most likely in good faith.


 * 1) A user removes sourced information from an article, with the summary 'this is wrong'.
 * This is somewhat complicated (>.<). A lot of vandals try to delete sections of articles (section blanking), and some I suppose try to justify those removals by saying they are wrong/unholy/unclean/antitasty/whatnot, but a lot of editors contest the factual correctness of articles on Wikipedia. So, the final verdict is this: I'd definitely revert, but I'd avoid immediately classifying it as vandalism, instead writing a quick note in the edit summary and writing something on the user's talk page discussing section blanking. Sheesh, that's a lot of bold text 0.o

Also, I apologize for not figuring out how to format my answers for numbered lists. Sorry about that. Thekillerpenguin    (talk)   20:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Part 2 (15%)

 * What type of warning you would give an editor in the following scenarios. If you don't believe a warning is appropriate outline what you would do instead (make sure you state all the actions you would take).
 * 1) A user blanks Cheesecake.
 * I'd give them a warning for unexplained removals of content.

If it was repeated, I'd give them the warning for repeatedly triggering the edit filter. Otherwise, I'd write a warning myself about attempted vandalism. I'd investigate. If the edit was fine, but they slipped on a key or something, I'd let it pass. If the edit itself was vandalism, I'd revert it. If the edit was fine, but the edit summary was not appropriate, I would give them the warning for tripping the edit summary filters. Quick revert, bam. Warning for level 1 vandalism. Unexplained removals of content, bam goes that warning. Revert, gauge the situation to see if it's a test or vandalism. If test, out goes the test warning, otherwise I would use the vandalism warning. Might be vandalism or a test, so revert, and to be a little nice, give them a test warning. BLP vandalism, revert and warn for BLP violations. Revert, give a vandalism warning at level 4im. Revert, I'd give them a vandalism warning at around level 2 since you've had troubles in the past. It's likely a test; give them a level 1 warning for editing tests.
 * 1) A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
 * 1) A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
 * 1) A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
 * 1) A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
 * 1) A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
 * 1) A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
 * 1) A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer for a fifth time.
 * 1) A user blanks your userpage and replaced it with 'I hate this user' (you have had a number of problems with this user in the past).
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.

Part 3 (10%)
Hmm, I wouldn't be inclined to put vandalism, so I'd go with the "test page" rationale. Probably test page. CSD for attack page and/or vandalism. Obvious hoax, CSD for that. And a pure vandalism CSD for you too.
 * What CSD tag you would put on the following articles (The content below is the article's content).
 * 1) Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
 * 1) Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
 * 1) Joe Nathan is the biggest idiot!
 * 1) A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
 * 1) Fuck Wiki!

What would you do in the following circumstances? Most likely the user intends to delete the page, in that case I'd use the category of "author blanked/author requested deletion".
 * A user blanks a page they very recently created.

I'd go to their talk page and have a chat about what they want to do, and see how to go from there on.
 * After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.

Part 4 (10%)
Possibly a violation, I'd wait and see. If they create a page about a band, I'd say it is a breach and report to UAA. Kinda disruptive, goes to UAA I guess. Breach, since it implies it is a bot. I'd warn and ask the user to change to another username. It's nonsense, but not a direct contradiction. I'd keep an eye on the edits; with such a random name, I'd find it hard to log back in, which means it might be a single-use vandal account. Breach, you're not supposed to imply that you're an admin/sysop. Discussion with user, or if unresponsive, to UAA. Breach, it would be confusing with the signature format. Not exactly a breach, I've never heard of anybody famous with a name like that. It's fine to use your real name. Breach, a) it's a famous (more like infamous) person, b) it implies an offical, role account.
 * Are the following new (logged in) usernames violations of the username policy? Describe why or why not and what you would do about it (if they are a breach).
 * 1) TheMainStreetBand
 * 1) Poopbubbles
 * 1) Brian's Bot
 * 1) sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
 * 1) Bobsysop
 * 12:12, 23 June 2012
 * 1) PMiller
 * 1) OfficialJustinBieber

Part 5 (10%)
If it's obvious, it's OK. If not-so-obvious, then yes, it could become an edit war. Vandalism-only accounts that have vandalized past their final warning should go to AIV. Complex abuse goes to WP:LTA. Those go to WP:UAA Usually, you should go to Dispute Resolution, but if it's serious and recurring, I guess it could go to the Drama Board of Doom (WP:ANI). It should usually go to WP:AN3, where you can report individual users. Those go to WP:BLPN.
 * Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.
 * 1) Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
 * 1) Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
 * 1) Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
 * 1) Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
 * 1) Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
 * 1) Where and how should an edit war be reported?
 * 1) Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?

Part 6 - Theory in practice (30%)

 * 1. Find and revert three instances of vandalism (by different editors on different pages), and appropriately warn the editor. Please give the diffs the warning below.


 * 2. Find and revert two good faith edits, and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.


 * 3. Correctly report two users (either AIV or ANI). Give the diffs of your report below.


 * 4. Correctly request the protection of two articles; post the diffs of your requests below.


 * 5. Correctly nominate one articles for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nominations below.


 * 6. Correctly report one username as a breache of policy.