User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/ToeFungii

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 User talk:Cassiopeia/CVUA/ToeFungii.

Make sure you read through Wikipedia:Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

How to use this 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.

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 have TW enabled and have used 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.

Answer: The main difference between vandalism and AGF is the user's intent. Vandals intend to harm WP whereas AGF are trying to improve WP. Good faith edits can be from an inexperienced user that isn't familiar with WP's guidance and formatting. As a result they may do something unconstructive such as breaking an infobox, posting unsourced BLP info, placing opinions on an article, and makimg other test edits. Vandalism can be subtle or obvious, such as blanking, adding random text, hidden vandalism (like template or CSS vandalism), or adding offensive material. Telling them apart is largely based on looking at the user's contribution history. A new user that is placing/removing offensive info across several pages rapidly may indicate a vandal, whereas a single edit may be more indicative of a AGF.

Y Good to know you would check the editor history log and talk page if the edit is in doubt. However, in regardless a new editor places vandalism edits across several pages in a short span of time or the editor just make one edit (even is their first edit), if their edit is "blatantly vandalism edit" then it is still considered a vandalism act. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:18, 4 May 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.

Good faith

Answer: (1) AGF1 diff | talkpage_ex1 I could be wrong on this. The user made comparable change on 2 articles and had several messages left on talk page. At the point of leaving the message, I still felt AGF was applicable as they explained their edits in the comments and weren't simply changing it. Because of the several messages left though, I felt disruptive2 template was applicable.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

(2) AGF2 diff | talkpage_ex2

Y it was the first edit from the editor and from the nature of the edit it was a test edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

(3) AGF3 diff | talkpage_ex3

Y. Unsourced edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

Answer:

(1) vandalism revert_ex1 | talkpage_ex1

Y. Even though the edit is blantanly a vandalism edit but this is the first edit from the editor, we could place vandal 2 instead. To say that admin did block the editor indef which most admin might give one more chance. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

(2) vandalism revert_ex2 | talkpage_ex2 lvl4 warning as had a lvl3

Y. good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

(3) vandalism revert_ex3 | talkpage_ex3 user already had lvl4 warning | reported to AIV

Y.

---

ToeFungii Good day. Any question regrading the assignment, please let me know here. For other questions not relating to the assignments, ping me on the talk page of this subpage Here. See above the first assignment. Ping me here when you are done and ready for review. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, finished Good faith and vandalism. ToeFungii (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

ToeFungii, see above comments. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I'm ready to go on, but do have one question. The next time you find (or know of one you can point to) template and CSS vandalism can you give me the link. I don't know if I've ever seen them. Thanks. ToeFungii (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

ToeFungii, Will do. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:54, 5 May 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

(1) Why do we warn users?

• Answer: A warning gives the user notice they're doing something contrary to WP guidance, and allows them the opportunity to learn how WP works with its many policies and guidance so they have the opportunity to make constructive vs unconstructive edits. For example, someone who puts unsourced info on a BLP page given the appropriate talk page message will have WP links about BLP pages, reliable sourcing, etc.

Y. Right. the purpose is to "educate" the editors on constructive editing, especially those who are new to Wikipedia and to "deter" them of such actions with stronger warnings leads up to a block. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(2) When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

• Answer: It would be appropriate when a user is causing severe disruption with significant and widespread vandalism where it's obvious there's an intent to harm WP. It could be inserting profanity (on articles, talk pages, or comments), blanking, adding gibberish, etc quickly.

Y. Good. 4im is only for widespread and particularly egregious vandalism and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(3) Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?

• Answer: Yes. The reason is that by using "subst" it locks in the wording based on the template used at the moment; otherwise, the template could change and it would change the wording on every page if "subst" were not used. TW does it automatically, but manually you would use {{subst:templatename}} rather than {{templatename}}.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

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

• Answer: Report them at WP:AIV.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(5) Please give examples and please do the substitution (using {{Tlsubst|''name of template''}}) of three different warnings with three different levels (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.

• Answer i:

{{subst:uw-vandalism2|Articletemplatename}}
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Article. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

This is the level 2 vandalism warning which explicitly states vandalism while the level 1 vandalism message does not, but still assumes good faith on the user's part. It's used after a level 1 warning, although depending on the specifics of the user's history and any prior warnings/messages it could be used without a level 1 vandalism message.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii:

{{subst:uw-biog3|Articletemplatename}}
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Article. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is the level 3 BLP warning for adding unsourced information. It should be used when a user has been previously warned and continues to put information without a reliable source on a biography page. At this level the possiblity is that the user is acting intentionally.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iii:

{{subst:uw-delete1|Articletemplatename}}
Hello, I'm ToeFungii. I noticed that you recently removed content from Article without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

This the level 1 warning for blanking or removing content from a page. It's used when a user removes material without a valid reason in the edit commentary and assumes good faith.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

---

ToeFungii, See assignment 2 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I've finished and ready to be checked. Thx. ToeFungii (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

ToeFungii, Well-done. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I'm ready to hit my brain with more:) ToeFungii (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Tools

Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#Tools 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.

Twinkle

Twinkle, as you know, is very useful. 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, WP:SPI, and other administrative noticeboards.

User creation log

In my early days of fighting vandalism on Wikipedia, one of the strategies I would use to find vandalism was to patrol the account creation log. This is located at Special:Log/newusers, and it logs every time a new user account is created on Wikipedia. You'll notice that new accounts with no contributions so far will have a red "contribs" links, whereas new accounts with some contributions will have blue "contribs" links. One great way not only to find vandalism, but welcome new users to Wikipedia is to check the blue contribs links that come in.

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 is an application that you download to your computer, and it provides you with diffs which either it or User:ClueBot NG have scored on their possibility of being uncontructive, and you are given the option to revert it as vandalism, revert it assuming good faith, mark it as innocent, or abstain from making a judgment on the diff. In order to use STiki, you need one of the following: (1) the rollback permission, (2) at least 1000 article edits (in the article namespace, not talk/user pages), or (3) special permission via Wikipedia talk:STiki.

Huggle

Huggle is also an application you download to your computer which presents you diffs (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. The rollback permission is required to use Huggle.

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: {{subst:uw-test1}}, {{subst:uw-test2}} and {{subst:uw-test3}}.

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

#	Type	Diff of your revert	Your comment - If you report to AIV please include the diff	CASS' Comment
Example	Unsourced	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
1	Test edit	example01	It was the user's first edit and looked like they were testing. Gave subst:uw-test1 - talkpage01.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
2	Test edit	example02	It was an ip with no recent activity so gave subst:uw-test1 - talkpage02.	N. Although it was the first edit after 7 years (previously has 4 edits in 2012--213 and might not be the same editor) - see editor contribution log here, to add 7 times US didnt look like a test edit (trying to see if they can actually make an edit in Wikipedia but a vandalism edit). See Note section for test edit. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
3	Vandalism (report to AIV)	example03a example03b example03c	This ip was vandalizing multiple pages. I gave subst:uw-vandalism4 as they already had uw-vandalism3. talkpage03. Report to AIV03. They were blocked here.	Y. Very good. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
4	Vandalism (report to AIV)	example04	I wasn't fast enough to give any talkpage warnings as the post/reverts were flying, but I did the revert after subst:uw-vandalism4 had been posted and made the AIV report AIV04. So there's no doubt as to the users intent, here's their filter log where they tripped a couple Here04a. Also so there's no doubt the user only had mischief in mind, they again hit the page here04b. They were blocked here.	Y.
5A	WP:NPOV	example05A	This one had 2 issues NPOV and RS/RSSelf. The npov comment was "Since then, they have come a long way." In edit summary I covered both issues. Gave subst:uw:npov1 - talkpage05A.	Y. See Note section for explanation of NPOV. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
5B	WP:NPOV I'm adding a 2nd which is cleaner	example05B	This user only had two edits both on this page and changed the whole tenor by adding "commercial Success". I left subst:uw:npov1. talkpage05B.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
6	WP:Fringe theories	example06	I had a BEAR of a time trying to find something that I think fits this and hope this does. At first I didn't consider fringe, but on 2nd look I believe it is. I did leave an unsourced1 template first because it fits that too, so I removed it and put subst:uw-fringe1. talkpage06.	Y. Fringe theories is one of the hardest to identify and find. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
7	WP:SPAM	example07a and example07b	Just happen to stumble on two ips leaving the same roofing companies link of two different pages. Neither ip had any recent activity so gave subst:uw-spam1 to each. talkpage07a talkpage07b.	Y. well-done. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
8	Talking on the article	example08	At the time it was the user's first post, so I gave subst:uw-talkinarticle - talkpage08.	Y. The only indication is the editor mentioned "you" and the signed off "x". Usually talking on the article would be more obvious then that - example " I am so bored tonight, anyone want to have a chat? pls visit my talk page" or "Hi, beautiful, I am telling you that my high school is the best school in NY, come and check it out yourself." Cassiopeia(talk) 11:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
9	Unsourced1	example09	User's only two edits were on this article and both added unsourced material with the first one being outrageous ("naked pictures") on a BLP. I gave subst:uwbiog1, although I gave thought to level 2 because of their first post about naked pics. talkpage09.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
10	vandalism2	example10	Even though it was the first post, I started with subst:uw-vandalism2 because of the combination of the edit summary and material (although I don't remember exactly what it was, I believe it included profanity and comments about wikipedia). talkpage10.	Y. Good work. Editor was blocked for 31 hours. - see HERE. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
11	disruptive2	example11	The user already had uw-delete1 so I left subst:uw-disruptive2 because there were prior large deletions on two pages for no reason, and for the specific change they made that I reverted did not match with the cite - talkpage11.	Y. Vandalism edit is usually very obvious; however, disruptive is something lesser degree of disruptive edit where sometimes it might be a vandalism edit, but if we are not sure about the edit due to unfamiliar with the subject or the content, but it appear to be not constructive at all, then a disruptive message could be placed. In this case, I check on the "Tour dates section, which stating December 1, the source does not specify the date but a quick check on the web HERE-2, the source did state December 1, 2013 at Hidalgo, Texas was the first date of the 2013 tour - thus a vandalism message is more appropriate. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
12	testedits1	example12	The user had made only 3 edits all on same article that appeared to be potential tests, so I gave subst:uw-test1 - talkpage12.	Y. The first edit HERE 3 would be a test edit, but the subsequent 2 edits (changing the name) would be a vandalism edits. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
13	vandalism2	example13	The user already had uw-vandalism1, so I left subst:uw-vandalism2 - talkpage13.	Y. Note - the editor is indef block - see HERE 4. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
14	edittest2	example14	The user already had uw-npov1 from another post, and then been told not to use WP as a cite; so I left subst:uw-test2 - example14	N. Cassiopeia(talk) 11:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
15	unsourced3	example15	This one is a little involved. The user had been posting under an ip and then made an account. The ip had two warnings on it already (See Here15, so I gave uw-unsourced3 and stated that they had already been warned on the ip and warned them about 3RR. talkpage15.	N it is a vandalism edit. Per source in the article - see HERE 5, subject was born in Virginia, so to change the info to England is considered adding false info. Cassiopeia(talk)
16	Test Edit	example16	This was users first edit and it just removed a couple letters so left uw-test1 - talkpage16	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 05:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
17	Test Edit	example17	Users first edit and they added "dfdsssss" in the middle of a word. Left subst:uw-test1 on talkpage17.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 05:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
18	Vandalism	example18	Even though an ip, it had put the exact same childish comment on another article here18 (they also had left a similar comment on that same article a few minutes earlier and been reverted) and been left a subst:uw-vandalism1 so I left subst:uw-vandalism2 - talkpage18. Since an ip, had a different childish comment been left 10 days earlier would have started at level 1.
19	Vandalism	example19	IP just had uw-vandalism1 put on them for a comparable change so I gave uw-vandalism2 - talkpage19.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 05:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
20	Unsourced	[example20]	The user posted unsourced info so left subst:uw-unsourced1 - talkpage20.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 05:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

---

ToeFungii Good day. See assignment 3 above. STiki is one of the vandalism tool and the requirement would need an editor with 1000k main space edit. It would be difficult just use recent changes to find vandalism related edits. You can ask for special request at Wikipedia talk:STiki and see if they give you the permission. Do let them know you are in CUVA program and mention my name so they can check the claimed. Note you can use both STiki or Twinkle tool whichever to suit you needs on template use as I dont think STiki has all the templates as Twinkle would have, and if Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, This has been a BEAR. Ready for you to take a look. Thx. ToeFungii (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

ToeFungii, Hi, Most trainee find this assignment a little bit challenging, especially on NPOV, and test edits. Few things to notes below and kindly complete additional questions as per the table. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, Done. There are some really fast people doing reverts. Make it hard to get any.

Can you take another look at 15 as I don't think there was the intention to vandalize even though they were changing something with a cite (and I put in my edit summary that the cite contained the existing info). If you read their edit summaries they claim to be a relative of the person and state trying to correct the information. They might not be, but I was taking their word on that and they even went to the Teahouse, Help Desk, and Wikiproject for help to change it. I felt like this fell into What is not vandalism's "A user who, in good faith, adds content to an article that is factually inaccurate but in the belief that it is accurate is trying to contribute to and improve Wikipedia, not vandalize it." It just doesn't seem that if their intent was to vandalize they would have gone to such lengths. Thx ToeFungii (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

ToeFungii, Well-done. see comments above and further examples of test edits below.

Examples of test edits as below:

1. HERE-1 - editor removed the last name of the subject of their very first edit and then replaced it back on the next edit (2nd edit) - HERE -2 - This is called "self revert test edit" - editor tried to an edit to see if they could actually make an edit in Wikipedia.

2.Same here - self revert test edit HERE-3] adding random character and self revert here - HERE-4

3.HERE-5 the editor adding random (look like typing on right hand site of the keyboard) on their fist edit - this is test editing.

Hope the above examples.

As of for William Longshaw Jr. edits by Longshaw. The initial edits made by Longshaw were under IP 64.228.134.34 - see here then edits again under Longshaw after they (Note: We used plural (gender free) if we dont know the gender of the editor in Wikipedia) created an account. On the initial comments made by Longshaw, we would take it as a vandalsim edit as they added something contrary to the source claimed. As the editor went through the length on 3 Wikipedia platform (Teahouse, Help desk and Military project), it seemed they edits might be in good faith. The thing is that, (1) we dont know if the editor is actually the cousin of the subject (2) no sources of their claim was provided as contrary to the source here VA. (3) Even if the editor is the actual cousin of the subject and his claim is correct, he should find the source and post it on the article talk page to for WP:Edit request for he has a WP:COI (conflict of interest) to edit the affected page. When an editor seek help, they should just post the in one planform/Wikipedia help desk and not 2 or 3. Questions will be answered by the experience volunteer and all the plaforms pointed to the same answer. - see Teahouse, Help Desk and Wikipedia Project Military. As we looked back and the additional edits from Longshaw we would stat that indeed the editor acted in good faith. You can remove the warning template from their talk page and state the reason and hist diff on the edit summary. I am happy that you look through the edits after you have made the revert. Info and guidelines are given but we have to make the right judgement call in practice and know how to apply them and why you think what type of edit the editor made.

I appreciate and happy you always provide explanation and all the diffs accordingly, this show me why and how you justify your answer and how you apply the guidelines of you edits. It is a very encouraging practice. Let me know if you have further questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignments. Stay safe ToeFingii and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I'm ready to go on. Thanks for the info and comments. It can be stressing trying to get reverts when there are a lot of counter-vandals on; I can't believe how fast some people are or maybe I'm just too slow. lol. ToeFungii (talk) 05:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

ToeFungii, Most reverts/placing of warning message are done by experienced counter vandalism editors and they used one of the counter vandalism tools. STiki is one of the but unfortunately there is a little problem at the moment which I was trying to get you to ask for the permission as in the past all my trainees got the permission when asked since they were in the CVUA program. I use Twinkle and Huggle most of the time and sometimes I manually subst it as some of the warning messages are not in Twinkle, Huggle or STiki. Once you have competed this program (finished the final exam) then you can apply user right to obtain Huggle. I have to say it is a little hard just by searching via recent changes edits alone and you are doing very well. As I resides in AUS, the traffic in Wikipedia is a little slower during my awake hours, but I could still find them easy as you will know in time when you have the tools and more experience. Cheers. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

ToeFungii, One more thing to add, if you are not sure about the edits (whether is a vandalism edit or disruptive edit or good faith /bad faith) then just do nothing and let other more experienced vandalism fighter or editors who knows more about the subject to action. One thing to note, when it comes to the statistic of sport person or sport results, do nothing about the edits, unless you are very familiar with the sport or the sport person statistic and know where to find source to back up your claim when you find an edit which is considered fault/vandalism. Often we see the results and the sportsperson statistic updated within the same minute when the sport result finish and no sources are provided as the the interest editor(s) update the info after watching the sport event live. Cheers. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, Trust me I bypass a ton. If it's one that I thing I should be able to understand I keep a browser tab with it to see if someone else reverts and follow it to see if i can figure it out as it plays out. On sports there are several I just ignore but others that i'm familiar with that i'm comfortable with. The battle I have is between is the person out to do good or harm. I lean to good, but when watching several of the real active counter-vandals (like materialscientist who is a beast) can literally fly through reverts faster than I can even read. But following him and several others is helping me to feel a little more comfortable but I know I've got a long way to go. thx. ToeFungii (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

ToeFungii, Materialscientist is an admin and from his talk page he has Doctor of Philosophy degree in Physics, has about 1.2 mil edits, and work on counter vandalism review (blocking editors) for years. Good to know you are familiar with some of the sports and know where to find source to back up your claimed when asks. Check out my user page User:Cassiopeia and click "Referencing sport-related bios" where you can find some sport statistic sources which might useful to you. When you are experience and have the vandalism too, you will be know which edits needed to be reverted but it takes time to gain the experience and for now, take your time and make sure you get everyone right. Cheers. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Notes:

1. Test edit - test edit is the first edit or first two edits (make in a quick succession) from an editor who "try" to make an edit and wanted to know if they "can actually" make an edit in Wikipedia (note: Most sites, besides the social media sites), we cant make an edit in the site). We usually see a "new" editor make an test edit in the following forms (1) add or remove a character/alphabet of a word, (2) add a space(s), (3) add no nonsensical squabble such as "skfjsofjso" or just state "hi" (if the editor has been edit for some time and state hi then it is not a test edit). Sometimes, an editor try to make a test edit (removed an alphabet from a word), then add it back on their second edit. In Huggle we have a template "self revert test edit" that we could place in the editor talk page.

2. WP:NPOV - neutral point of view - when we add/change a content in the Wikipedia page, we need to write the content in neutral point of view which means no enhancing of any form of the content especially the subject. Example, we could place Jessica Alba is an Amemrican actress, but if we put "Jessica Alba is the most beautiful actress in American" then that the content is not ahered to NPOV. Another example, if India beats Australia in cricket with the scoring of 115 - 70. We just put India won the match or India won the match with the scoring of 115-70. If we put India smasch Australia, or India took the victory and put Australia to shame as the match was in Sydney then it is considered not adhere to NPOV. We mainly report the fact, simple without put all the promotional words to enhance the info. The info speaks the fact in "plain manner"

3. Disruptive - it not a vandalism edit but it continues disruptive then the editor could be reported to AIV. Pls note, vandalsim 9back to Assignment 1 : is an blatant act to harm Wikipedia. We also ask ourselves when revert a vandalsim edit, is the editor trying to harm Wikipedia or being disruptive because not aware/refuse to listen to advice.

4.Warning level - in Assignment 2 - we also place level one warning and if the editor continue the same fashion of edit then we increase the level subsequently (back to assignment 1 - assume good faith especially with new editors) unless their edits are so prevalent or place extreme damage to the article such as extremely disguising langues the we place higher level of warning at first.

5. Check the sources in the article, editor contribution log and talk page, to verify the claim, the editing behavior of the editor for understand (if possible) the "intent of the editor who makes the edit). If you are not sure of the edit make due to you are not familiar with the nature of the edit and the subject matter, then leave it to other more experience counter vandalism editor or editor who know about the subject well to action.

---

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:").

---

Hi ToeFungii, Posted Assignment 4 above. No exercises for this assignment but only some reading material. Once you have done reading, pls let me know so I would post Assignment 5 for you. Cheers. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I'm ready for the next module. What's funny, or more likely makes sense is that I had run into a bunch of these ip templates and wondered how they got put on the accounts and now i know. ToeFungii (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Dealing with difficult users

Harassment and trolling

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.

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Answer: Because it's attention they are seeking and by engaging with them it feeds that attention thereby encouraging them to continue their actions which is to disrupt WP. If they don't get the attention they are seeking, then they may just stop. Also we have to avoid being sucked in by the troll and engaging in an edit war which feeds their goals. This can be done in several ways including by slow reverts and edit summaries that don't cause flames.

Y. Good. If editor asks questions, we should reply but in a mechanical way and not engaging in their troll behaviour, repeating the same mechanical answer if needed. The main point/goal of the trolls is that they want attention. We dont feed them and dont get mad by denying them the recognition that they seek is critical to countering them. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?

Answer: A troll is trying to get under your skin and cause you to react to them by making personal attacks or comments about their being superior or just making ugly comments. A good faith editor may get mad and make ugly comments at you because you reverted them and placing a message on their talk page but should tend to focus more on the change to the article page.

Y. Sometimes good faith editors would get upset/annoyed as well and convey their message which might not be pleasant for your standard. Many times troll might not use personal attacks but being rude, condescending, put down, name calling and etc. To check on the editors past edits/talk page would help; however, the bottom line is that trolls want to annoy you and good faith editors annoyed at you and that is the subtle different. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Emergencies

I hope this never happens, but as you participate in counter-vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible that you may come across a threat of physical harm. In the past, we have had vandals submit death threats in Wikipedia articles, as well as possible suicide notes. The problem is, Wikipedia editors don't have the proper training to evaluate whether these threats are credible in most cases.

Fortunately, there's a guideline for cases like this. Please read Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm carefully and respond to the questions below.

Who should you contact when you encounter a threat of harm on Wikipedia? What details should you include in your message?

Answer: It should be reported via email to emergency@wikimedia.org or Special:EmailUser/Emergency with the page and a diff where the threat was made. Also contact an admin via a low visability method, and Wikipedia:RFO if needed so that any information that needs suppressed can be. If I'm in danger, I should contact my local emergency services.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

What should you do if an edit looks like a threat of harm, but you suspect it may just be an empty threat (i.e. someone joking around)?

Answer: Any threats should be treated seriously and still report it as above to an admin via a low visibility method so they can take action including suppressing anything that needs to be. I'd also contact Wikipedia Foundation staff as described above so they can make the evaluation.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sock pupperty

Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and answer the question below

What forms socks puppetry usually takes? and where to report it?

Answer: I'll answer the 2nd question first which is to report socks to WP:SPI. Types of sockpuppetry are: using an ip address in addition to one's account to make problem edits; a new acct to avoid a block or other sanctions; using an acct that's been dormant and look like a different user; and by a version called meat puppetry by bringing in friends (or apparently based on some things I've read when doing rfc's people some where call for like minded people over the internet to get involved) to help in a dispute.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Hi ToeFungii, see Assignment 5 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi CASSIOPEIA,ready, and if the above is good i'm ready for the next module. thx ToeFungii (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi CASSIOPEIA, I'm not sure if my ping got lost in the weeds. If it didn't and you've been busy, no problem; I just wanted to make sure. thx. And because the weekend is upcoming, if I've passed this section please go ahead and give me the next module. thx. ToeFungii (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi ToeFungii, See above comments and btw my user name is sentence case. Best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thx Cassiopeia. What's funny is I just copied your username from the first post and it is there with just "C" capitalized twice and in all caps once and I obviously copied the wrong one. I'll know from now on. lol too funny. On the feedback thx. tonite there has been a bunch of what I would say are trolls (including one arguing with himself), but the subtleness is something I'm still having to get a handle on. The good thing is being 2nd to a bad edit and/or watching what other editors do that I know are experienced really helps to start to pick up some of the subtleties.

I do have a question and I don't remember any names, but there are several people that I see undoing what they obviously consider vandalism or bad edits, but not warning the user. Is it appropriate to put something on their talk page? Until I finish this class, and maybe not even for abit after that, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable saying something, but usually I pickup they didn't warn them when I look at the bad edit person's history and go to warn them. Any thoughts? ToeFungii (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi ToeFungii, My previous username was all caps but I changed it to sentence case two months ago. Either all caps or sentence of my user name should reach me (I will receive a notification). As for you question, most of the editors do not know how to warn the editor or what kind of template to be used / know how to use Twinkle, and some know how to do so put prefer not to do it instead just revert /correct the edits for the reason they do not want to questions or receiving troll from the editor who vandalized the page. We the counter vandalism editors do receive very unpleasant message at times and also at times message of physical threads of sort. If you do encouter this then just WP:DENY and do not engage with them but just mechanically answer the questions if any. Take a break and make yourself a cup or coffee or go for a run before doing the vandalism work. If the editor didnt place a warning message, we can place them. You could "politely" let them know how to place the warning message via Twinkle and send them the WP:VAL page for them to read. If they have been edit for a long time, they usually know but just dont want to get involved. For those who are really interested, they you might let them there is a CVUA program if they wish to learn. We the Wikipedians, not only edit, create the page but also educate the new editor if they need help, to me it is part of giving back not only to those who have taught us but also to Wikipedia itself where we gain so much knowledge of. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:10, 16 May 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. 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.

1. In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

Answer: When a page is being hit by alot and continuing edits by ip's and new accounts (less than 4 days old). This can stop disruptive edits and vandalism. It can also help stop sockpuppets of blocked users.

2. In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?

Answer: It's useful as an alternative for an article being vandalized regularly but has few edits otherwise. This way it lets registered users with at least 10 edits and four days old make edits, but ip and new accounts can make an edit that is patrolled. If there's a pending change, even older accounts edits will be set to pending review.

3. In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Answer: At this level only admins (or for templates those with template editor rights) can make changes. This is done when there is content disputes and edit warring by extended confirmed accounts/templates/modules. For articles, this can happen when there is some big news issues with a politician or other high profile person.

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

Answer: This is for bad articles that have been deleted but are repeatedly recreated. There are levels that can be applied identical to edit protection. It is done via a case sensitive blacklist and the list seems to be comprised of wikipedia process/policy names/terms, offensive/vulgar names/terms, promotion of ideas, persons, etc.

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

Answer: A users talk page should be protected rarely, but instead a user blocked with talk page editing disallowed. Article talk pages are usually not protected and only with severe/offensive vandalism may be semi-protected for a short period.

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

Answer:

Answer i - Pending: Pending chg protection request || Pending chg protection approved on RPP page || Pending chg protection applied to page

Answer ii - Semi or Full: SemiPP Request || SemiPP approved on RPP page || SemiPP applied to page

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

1. In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria? Answer : Speedy deletion is for when a page meets certain criteria such there is no practical chance that a deletion discussion would not result in deleting it. Examples are pure vandalism or threats, promotion, copyright infringement, hoaxes, redirects, test pages, uncontroversial housekeeping, etc.

2. Correctly tag 3 pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons - they can be for any of the criteria and Pls provide the article names and provide the criteria. You can look up the articles from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section for G11 and G12 only and New Page Patrol for A7/A9). For COPYVIO pls check the text vs the source by using Earwig Copy detector.

Answer (1) Promotion-G11:
Ex1-Talk page showing G11 submission || Ex1-Deletion log showing G11
Ex2-Talk page showing G11 submission || Ex2-Deletion log showing G11

Answer (2) Copyvio-G12:
Ex1-Earwig score was 83.8% || Ex1-Talk page showing G12 submission || Ex1-Deletion log showing G12 || Ex1-Shows deleted(need to read orangish box in center)
Ex2-This wasn't approved, but kind of was. || Ex2-Earwig score was 72.0% || Ex2-Talk page showing G12 submission || Ex2-Admin deleted versions and text vs deleting article || Ex2-Admin giving final warning to user

Answer (3) NoImportance-A7/A10:
Ex1-Talkpage showing A7 submission || Ex1-Deletion log showing A7
Ex2-Talkpage showing A7 submission || Ex2-Deletion log showing A7
Ex3-Talk page showing A7/G11 submission || Ex3-Deletion log showing A7/G11
Ex4-Talkpage showing A7 submission || Ex4-Deletion log showing A7/G11(admin added G11) || The admin added G11 because of an unsubstantiated WP:Puffery statement on the page.
I had a hard time with A7, but two users gave me a lot of help (Dps04 & SpicyMilkBoy). In addition to the above, I had 4 rejected, two where the poster added information and then evaluated and rejected so additional info may have made the difference. One where the admin moved the article to draft. So it was a learning experience where my last three, after taking a break, were both accepted. So this was a killer at first.

---

ToeFungii, See Assignment 6 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, Wow this was tough. Ready to be checked and hopefully move forward. Thx. ToeFungii (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)