User:ToadetteEdit/CVUA/Me Da Wikipedian

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.


 * Before you start, you should first read WP:VAND carefully as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.


 * Acceptance:I accept and I have already read WP:VAND beforehand Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Provided you read vandalism page, you should also read WP:EW, WP:SPAM. I've seen lots of concerns with your reverts of accurately reverted material, the first stage will be more than you think. Toadette Edit! 07:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Already had Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Twinkle
Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE. I've had it enabled for nearly 3 weeks now Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.

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.
 * , you haven't answered yet.

Vandalism is deliberately trying to disrupt or defeat the purpose of the encyclopedia. So like adding curses where they don't belong randomally, or removing good stuff just to cause disruption, moving pages to nonsense titles, etc. Good faith edit would be something helping the encyclopedia, like adding useful information, referenced and properly, or a honest mistake (making an accidental typo, poor grammar, etc.). Sorry, didn't see this earlier
 * Satisfactory, but ✅


 * 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:,, and


 * 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:
 * Why do we warn users? Because a lot of people genuiely don't know what they are doing it wrong or how to it right
 * Satisfactory

. 4im warning are not given after the final warning. Amendment:As the first and only warning for clear and massive disruption. How are the rest of my answers, ?
 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate? If a user vandalizes after a level 4 warning
 * ✅; 4im warnings are reserved for the most egregious examples of vandalism (e.g. intentionally adding inappropriate (porn) images onto articles)


 * Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it? Yes, putting subst: before the template like this ~


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


 * 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. NOTE:So these don't actually do it I have made them invisible comments for vandalism, first time. ~ for a test edit after having been warned that month.  ~ for removing content without any/good reason after having been warned twice this month.
 * Tip: It is best to use the provided code above, so the first would be, the second and the third . Rule number one, it does not necesarily mean that you should increment warnings within a month duration even if the warnings given are scattered in that duration, at least after a couple of days you should start with  , as the IP may be a different user or if a user who had done disruption does it again after a week or two fron the most recent warning given.

However, I would give a satisfactory for this answer.

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.

I know that already. Done below. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 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

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.

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.

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.

A note: As far as I can remember, you had a declined application for rollback rights. I think that it is time to apply for it, but it would certainly be declined (again) citing your block and prior poor patrolling; I recommend waiting at least 2-3 weeks later before reapplying it.

I did (a while ago). "I think that it is time to apply for it" and "it would certainly be declined" and "I recommend waiting at least 2-3 weeks" are a bit contradictory. Should I apply or not (I personally doubt I would get it but...)?

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.

To avoid encouraging them.
 * Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

I think its pretty much common sense. Are they are asking a question or trying to be obnoxious? Is there goal to help or get me annoyed/cause disruption?
 * How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?

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?

Persistent disruption of some sort by non-autoconfirmed users. Rare edited page with persistent disruption by non-autoconfirmed users. Also, is there a pending changes level 2 or above that I'm not aware of?
 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?

Really constant disruption by Extend confirmed users or a dispute between them if that's necessary
 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Something repeatedly recreated as bad page, which will probably not be created as a good one.
 * In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?

Persistent disruption on the talk page
 * In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?

Sorry, I forgot to actually give the diff. Here it is: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

✅ all.
 * user notes

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.

If it is one or more of the following:no useful content, is in violation of policy, clearly not notable, or not wanted/unneccessary
 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?
 * Please note that by saying "clearly not notable", you are suggesting A7/A9/A11. These criteria deal with significance and not notability; it is one of the most common mistakes. ✅

Draft:Thapelo Joseph Mofokeng as spam
 * 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.

Draft:Melnyky (Chyhyryn Raion) as a copyvio



The first page is unverifiable because 1) you did not warn the user and 2) I could not access the revision because it was deleted altogether; since I am not an admin.
 * user notes

After seeing this, I do not believe you have the full understanding of speedy deletion criterion G1 (and G2). A new user adds "shdydkbdoysgsz" to their sandbox and and you see it, would you tag that page for speedy deletion or not? Why? An IP adds the content "I can edit this" to their talk page (ips can only create talk pages), would you tag it or not? A vandal adds the content "oydssitdlyodydyooxt" to another user's user subpage. Would you tag it or not. If so which criterion would you use and why?
 * In the two cases, I would not. I would tag the third as G1 and or G3. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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).

This seems fine. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * DJohnson
 * , have you forgotten Dwayne Johnson?
 * DJohnson could theoretically have nothing to do with him. I would assume it's fine unless edits indiciate otherwise Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd reported as promotional and/or misleading. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * LMedicalCentre
 * Policy states that such usernames must not be reported if they haven't made any edits. Should not be reported as misleading.
 * Why? It is claiming to LMedicalCentre (which is probably also a shared use issue). Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This name is disruptive, but could be a mistake so I'd leave a message on the talk page about it before going to UAA or something like that. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fuqudik
 * Should immediately report to UAA without any message.

I would only report if it was making promotional edits as well. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ColesStaff
 * this username imply shared usage, which is not allowed per policy.
 * Not neccessarily. It could also be the staff (stick) of someone named Cole. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * ~ Report as that is how you add a signiturate and is confusing/misleading. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 172.295.64.27 Looks like an IP, misleading, would report. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Report to UAA as libel to Bieber. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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?


 * Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?


 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?


 * 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?


 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?


 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?

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?


 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?


 * Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?


 * 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?


 * If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?


 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?


 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?

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?


 * If you do revert which warning template would you use?


 * Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?


 * Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?


 * Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?

Results
Your Score: