User:Omni Flames/CVUA/CookieMonster755

Hello, and welcome to your very own counter-vandalism academy page! We'll be using this page for everything related to your training. That means I'll be posting questions, information, and tests here, but don't worry, I'll teach you everything :).

This page will be built-up over your time here at the academy, and I'll add new sections as we go along. If I post something here, please reply directly below my message. If something is in bold it means I want you to reply directly underneath it. Please do so.

In some exercises I will ask you to provide "diffs". See Help:Diffs for how to do this.

Tools

Before we start, I wanted to show you some useful tools for counter-vandalism work which can be used by any editor. You can use all of these, none of these, or some of these. I don't mind, these links are just for your convenience. You may have already installed some of these in the past.

Twinkle

Twinkle is a very popular gadget which is helpful for a variety of tasks. To install it, go here and tick the box that says Twinkle. Then scroll down to the bottom of the page and click "save". When you refresh the page, a "TW" tab will be available on every page, next to the "More" tab. Scrolling over the TW tab will show a list of modules you can use on the particular page. Twinkle has a large number of useful modules, including but not limited to, one which can be used to warn users, one which can be used to request page protection, one which can be used to suggest a page is deleted, and many many more helpful features. It also adds a non-admin "rollback" feature on all diff pages. I highly suggest you enable Twinkle, as it's incredibly useful and poses no risk of harming your account.

Lupin's Anti-vandal tool

Lupin's Anti-vandal tool is extremely helpful for monitoring recent changes in real time. To install it, simply add the following to your common.js.
importScript('User:Lupin/recent2.js');
Refresh the page and you'll find 5 new links on your toolbar (on the left side of the page, underneath "interaction"). These links can be used to better monitor recent changes for possible vandalism.

IRC channels

IRC is an internet chat program. There are several channels on IRC that can be used to monitor vandalism. #cvn-wp-en ^connect is probably the most useful. Visit Wikipedia:IRC/Tutorial for information on how to connect to channels.

Navigation Popups

Navigation popups allow you to hover over links and see a brief preview of the page being linked to. One feature of navigation popups is that when you're at recent changes and hover over "diff" links, you'll have the ability to revert the most recent edit, useful for undoing vandalism. To install navigation popups, go here and tick the box that says Navigation popups. Then scroll down to the bottom of the page and click "save". Refresh the page and navigation popups will be enabled.

Now that you've read these, reply below with which scripts you installed/what you signed up for. I don't mind how many you installed, or if you installed none, it's just so I know and can set tasks using those scripts. Also note that there are many more advanced scripts out there, but they'll only be available to you when you have more experience.

@Omni Flames: Thank you so much for enrolling me in the CVUA! You are a wonderful instructor! I have Twinkle and Lupin's Anti-vandal tool installed and set up, which I love using! Please assign some homework for me to do. Cheers! CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 22:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@CookieMonster755: Sure, I've posted it below. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 22:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism vs Good Faith

Please read WP:VAND, and note the different types of vandalism. Take a look at WP:VANDNOT to see what isn't vandalism. Then read WP:GF and answer the following questions.

What is the different between vandalism and a good faith edit?

• Good faith edit: According to Wikipedia policy, a Good faith edit (e.g. assuming good faith) is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith, and is not to harm Wikipedia. The Good faith (edit) policy does not require editors to continue good faith in the event of Vandalism. Everybody makes mistakes, and tries to have Good faith, and I can say myself, when I first signed up for Wikipedia, I was making many Good and bad faith edits. A good faith edit may be adding non-referenced information and accidental Wiki makeup, or not knowing Wikipedia formatting guides.

Y Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Vandalism: According to Wikipedia policy, Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Examples of vandalism could be Abuse of tags, creating accounts with usernames that contain deliberately offensive or disruptive terms, repeatedly uploading copyrighted material, adding profanity, graffiti, or patent nonsense to pages, etc. I will be honest, I have vandalized in the past, by adding Speedy deletion tags to new articles that don't qualify for speedy deletion.

Y Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Why is it important to assume good faith?

It is important to assume good faith so that all editors can keep cool while the editing gets hot and so that we can all work together to improve Wikipedia. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with each other. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 14:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please provide 3 diffs of a user vandalizing below. You may choose to revert it if you wish. Note that if it's already reverted, it doesn't matter, you can still provide it.

• Abuse of tags and Deceiving — In this example, you see that Linguist1111 placed an inappropriate warning tag, giving a false warning of vandalism. Linguist1111 forged the signature of Linguist111, in an attempt to trick other editors and attack Linguist111. They were also investigated as a sockpuppet and blocked indefinitely from editing.

Y Not sure if this could be classified as "vandalism" as such, but the edit was definitely not okay. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean there, Omni Flames. I guess that is not vandalism, just disruptive editing. Hey, at least I am learning at CVUA! CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 20:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Silly vandalism — In this example, you see that Verizon Wireless IP address, 2600:1009:B106:5278:6E62:A03B:7A9F:B7C7 of Dayton, Ohio, inserted silly vandalism referring to sexual activity. This edit was reverted by me. You can see that this was the only edit by this IP address.

Y Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Silly vandalism — Again, this is another example of silly vandalism by 222.153.55.248 of Paraparaumu. They only made two edits, which are attributed to this article only.

Y Also see WP:NPOV Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please provide 3 diffs of an edit which was made in good faith, but was unhelpful. The same rules apply as with the vandalism edits.

• Good faith — An example of a good faith edit by Jopsprinkles, reverted by JamesG5. The user added Misinformation: 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.

Y Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Good faith — Castncoot made a good faith edit, which was reverted by Dhtwiki because LGBT is the usually designation and not LGBTQ.

Y Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Good faith — Checkingfax made a good faith edit, which was reverted by Bbb23 due to clarification and talk page discussions.

Y Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Omni Flames and CookieMonster755. Where is the clarification and talk page discussion that you mention above? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax – This is my official userpage for CVUA training and homework, so I can become a pro anti-vandalism fighter for Wikipedia. Thanks for coming and checking it out. Regards to your question: ...more accurate before if clarification; if not, changes have to be discussed—Bbb23. Best Regards, Cheers! CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 19:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, CookieMonster755. I still do not understand your source of my highlighted comment above. Where did you get that comment from? And, how did you decide that my edit was the unhelpful one? Just because somebody reverts my edit does not mean it was unhelpful. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, Checkingfax. I got that comment from the Diff/History section of the page. I cited that diff as a reverted Good faith edit. I am a student at the CVUA, and my homework was to sight three vandalism and three good faith edits, so I know the difference. Please excuse me, my pardon, If I did not explain well. Bonjour! CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 20:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Assignment:  Done @ 00:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames: I am done with the assignment. Thank you. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓}

@CookieMonster755: Great! I marked it and added another assignment below. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User Warnings

Read WP:WARN and WP:UWUL. In short, user warnings are templates used to notify users that their edits have been problematic. Once you've read and thoroughly reviewed those pages, please answer the following questions.

Why and when should warnings be used?

Warnings notifications are templates with important information, most often to warn of disruptive behavior (e.g. vandalism), to specific users who preform actions on Wikipedia that does not follow policy. These templates are used to notify users to stop certain behaviors they are preforming on Wikipedia, or future consequences will be coming their way (e.g. blocking). These warnings give the user a chance to stop their behavior and actually contribute to Wikipedia to improve the project. If behavior continues, there are several levels of user warnings. You start with a level one warning, and work your way up if the behavior does not stop. If it does not stop, you will reach the highest level warning (4 or 4im), posting it on their user-page. If they continue to do their behavior, you report them based on what behavior they are doing (e.g., WP:AIV for Vandalism and WP:SPI for Sock puppetry). AIV states that The user must have been given enough warnings to stop their disruptive behavior.

Should warnings be substituted? If so, how would you do this?

Before we answer that question, let's define what is substitution. According to WP:SUBST, Substitution is a different way of handling templates than normally done on Wikipedia. Usually, templates are transcluded, which means that if the template changes, every page that uses it will change to match. So yes, all warnings need to be substituted in the event that the template is change (e.g., typo). WP:SUBST also states All of the templates listed in Category:User warning templates and Category:Welcome templates should be substituted. Now, lets move on to the next part of the question. How could you do this? Well, you use this formula: {{subst:warning template name}} (e.g. {{subst:Uw-advert4im}} – my favorite warning template )

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

According to WP:UWLEVELS, It is not always necessary for an editor engaging in vandalism to receive a full 4 warnings before they can be reported or blocked. In cases of gross, extreme, or numerous vandalism it may be appropriate to use the Level 4im warning. In the event that the vandalism is extreme, I will give a user a 4im warning, but I report them (e.g., to WP:AIV) at level 4 warning according to policy, which states If an editor continues to vandalize after a Level 4 warning or Level 4im warning, they should be reported to Administrator intervention against vandalism. An administrator will then review their edits and determine if a block is required.

If a user who has already received a 4/4im level template vandalizes again, what would you do?

Report them to WP:AIV immediately, where a block should be issued by an administrator on duty.

Please give examples of three warnings that you might need to use while vandal patrolling and explain what they are used for. You can use {{Tlsubst|name of template}} to do this.

• {{subst:Uw-vandalism1}} — I would use this when I see a (new) user (who has not been warned before or a user who has been unblocked) and is vandalizing pages, according to policy on what is and is not vandalism.
• {{subst:uw-advert1}} – I would use this when I see a (new) user (who has not been warned before or a user who has been unblocked) and is using Wikipedia for promotion and soap boxing.
• {{subst:Uw-unsourced1}} – I would use this when I see a (new) user (who has not been warned before or a user who has been unblocked) and is adding unsourced or improperly cited material.

@Omni Flames:  Done @ 19:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC) –CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓}

@CookieMonster755: Great! Your answers look good to me. The next task is below. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Theory in practice

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

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff	My comment
1	diffdiffdiff	Several Silly Vandalism inserts to Oda Nobunaga by 192.43.223.42 I reverted. I warned the user appropriately [1][2]. I reported this user to AIV (with additional comment). The user was blocked prominently.	Y
2	diffdiffdiffdiff	A spicy combo of Silly and image vandalism by 177.154.44.68 to several articles, including Squid and President of Brazil. I warned the user several times to stop, with appropriate warning templates [3][4][5]. They kept vandalizing after the warning limited, so I reported them to AIV. They were blocked. The user requested unblock, citing that it was their son damaging Wikipedia. The users request was denied and I told them to read Wikipedia:My little brother did it. After the talk page fiasco, the user blanked their page. It was an exhausting night, but fun at the same time. I don't like it when ClueBot reverts vandalism, because I want to revert it myself	Pending
3	diffdiffdiffdiffdiff	Omni Flames, I am going to be honest with you. This was one of the worst cases of vandalism I have dealt with in my Wikipedia career here. The following IP addresses: 100.0.218.188, 2601:183:200:D18E:F44F:2E94:6CDF:308C, 96.237.148.112 and 68.229.181.189 were making Silly vandalism edits to Ron Kulpa. I warned all of them about vandalizing the page [6][7][8][9]. It was crazy, all of them vandalizing the same page. It brings up questions about whether they were sockpuppets. I had to request protection for the page, which was accepted and is currently semi-protected. Hey wait, the story does not end there. Two users, 68.229.181.189 and Freedomisntfree9036 vandalized my user page [10][11]. Out of the whole fiasco, Freedomisntfree9036 was the only user blocked. They tried to request an unblock by citing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that did not succeed. It was a crazy night, and I am so glad that is done with!	Pending
4	diff	Vandalism by 172.56.12.141 to Jason Castro (singer). They were warned.	Pending
5	diff	Silly vandalism by 2602:306:8016:8060:1994:E364:8006:52A6 to N (singer). They were warned. They were later blocked.	Pending
6	diff	Image vandalism by 24.16.200.134 to Ned Stark. They were warned.	Pending
7	diff	Silly vandalism by 24.113.99.204 to Cam Newton. They were warned.	Pending
8	diff	Silly vandalism by 2602:306:8016:8060:1994:E364:8006:52A6 to N (singer). They were warned.	Pending
9	diff	Vandalism by the same IP mentioned in section 8. They were warned and later blocked temporarily.	Pending
10	diff	Silly vandalism by 122.61.114.37 to Nazareth discography. They were warned. Please note, that was their only edit to Wikipedia.	Pending
11	diff	Vandalism by 36.253.255.55 to Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia. They were warned and later blocked temporarily.	Pending
12	diff	Vandalism by 61.75.53.233 to HowToBasic. They were warned.	Pending
13	diff	Vandalism by 85.166.5.126 to F1 2016 (video game). They were warned.	Pending
14	diff	Vandalism by 81.159.92.128 to Mark Cocker (wrestler). They were warned.	Pending
15	diff	Test edit by 198.73.209.1 to User:Pchelolo/Test. They were warned.	Pending

Omni Flames, done with homework. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 23:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Omni Flames, are we still doing this? It's been 10 months since I wrote the above message CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 00:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Omni Flames, it's been sixteen months since I've completed homework xD CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 02:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Omni Flames It's been almost four years and my homework hasn't been graded cookie monster (2020) 755 00:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)