User:Omni Flames/CVUA/JWNoctis

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.

Response

Twinkle: Already installed and have been using that for a while now.

Lupin's Anti-vandal tool: Installed and checked out okay, but uncertain whether to alter existing routine of refreshing talk page, especially since navigation popups do not appear to work with it, and Cluebot would have done anything to be done with a word filter.

IRC: Signed up, registered and verified. Planning to stay on #cvn-wp-en and already shot a few more vandals down thanks to that. Tried #wikipedia-en too but only got a faceful of political talk - Tired of those myself, so maybe another day.

Navigation popups: Installed and checked out all right. Failed installation until manual addition in common.js. Seemed handy for reviewing diff directly in Recent changes page, and general wiki-walking. Threw in syntax highlight while I'm at it and seemed fine as well.

@Omni Flames: I think it went well! JWNoctis^talk 02:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Or...not. I went way over my head there. I apologize for what I've done and I'm ready to listen. JWNoctis^talk 05:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Great! I've added another task below. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:32, 5 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 edits are made with intent to contribute, whether they are actually constructive or not. Vandalism is not. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 04:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is it important to assume good faith?

Wronging other editors on their intention by assuming bad faith is discouraging at best, induce incivilities at worse, or drive -- Especially new -- editors who have already or may otherwise eventually contribute greatly to the project away at worst, and is against the spirit of Wikipedia. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 04:49, 6 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.

[1] Single word replacement with profanity.

Y Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

[2] Repeated blanking of entire AIV board.

Y Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

[3] Intentional misinformation - Lucy is not from Star War. Reverted this one myself. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 04:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Y Haha. "FN-2187". Vandalism but still pretty funny. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:25, 7 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.

[4] Contribution in poor grammar by editor with English as secondary language. Reverted this one myself due original description being succinct and helpful enough.

Y Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

[5] Probable edit test, editor probably had little idea what they are actually doing. Reverted this one myself.

Y Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

[6] Conflict-of-interest addition by editor, self-promotional but not quite bad faith and not vandalism per se. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 04:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Y Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@JWNoctis: I've marked this and added the next task. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:25, 7 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?

When one spot and revert edits that went contrary to guideline and policy, and to advise users of the nature of their actions. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 04:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

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

They should be. This is done by adding subst: before the name of warning template like: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} JWNoctis^{talk to me} 04:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

When combating obviously intentional or repeated violation of gross nature of corresponding policy or guideline, and when assuming good faith would be irrational. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 04:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Report user to AIV board - Twinkle is good help for that. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 04:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

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-delete1}} Removal of content with no citation for good countering source, with no obvious bad intent.

{{subst:uw-vandalism1}} Plain old lesser vandalism for first offender that probably didn't actually know what they've been doing.

{{subst:uw-speedy1}} Removal of speedy delete template without good reason, typically done by creator of the page concerned, usually without an edit reason too. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 04:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Great! I've added your next assignment below. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:57, 9 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	Blanking/failed attempt at summing up	Gave level 2 vandalism warning - Assumed no faith due preceding 4im CSD template removal and other warnings w/TW.	Y
2	Good old keyboard mashing	Gave level 1 warning w/TW.	Y
3	trashy music	Gave level 1 vandalism warning w/STiki.	Y
4	Test edit?	Gave level 1 vandalism warning since that covered test edits in wordings w/STiki.	Y Not sure about this one, perhaps a good faith revert would've worked better.
5	Wikipedia is not Better Business Bureau	Gave level 1 vandalism warning w/STiki.	Y
6	Chipping off	Gave level 1 vandalism warning w/TW.	Y
7	Joke edit and dank memes	Gave level 1 vandalism warning w/STiki.	Y
8	Chocolate	What a real piece of work...None warning given as user is already on level 4 and edit occurred prior to that warning being given. Not reported as well, since they appear to have stopped vandalizing after that warning.	Y
9	Nopeeee	Gave uw-vandalism1 w/STiki.	Y
10	Mashing with caps on	No warning given, IP already blocked by time of revert.	Y
11	wine, waine and lil winw	Probably very young IP editor fooling around, gave uw-vandalism1 w/ STiki, would call this a test edit.	Y
12	yep	Gave uw-vandalism2 w/STiki.	Y
13	wrighting	Gave uw-vandalism1 w/STiki.	Y
14	higher, stronger, faster with the best of intention	AIV report The most remarkably sophisticated vandal I've seen so far - They went so far as obfuscating their edits by moving around surrounding lines, and feeding WikiLove to those who reverted them. Fooled me for a bit after I gave them a uw-error1 for another edit.	Y
15	Anytime, anywhere! in all their glory	AIV report Self-proclaimed professional page blanker with logic resembling one certain black hat from xkcd. Fell victim myself apparently for that revert, which was the 2nd time my userpage was vandalized. Plenty of uw-delete were given but one might as well try to jam a paper shredder with more paper.	Y

And that is it. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 15:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@JWNoctis: Sorry for the delay, I didn't realize you were done. Anyway, great job! I've added the next assignment below. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 07:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

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:"). Nothing to do in this assignment, except for reading it. Once you've seen it let me know below.

Done. TW seemed to auto-tag {{Shared IP}} when reverting IP edits, the rest would have to be done by manual tracing. {{OW}} appeared underused.

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.

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Bestowing any recognition to trolls and vandals would only further encourage them, which is...not helpful. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 14:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

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

It's all in the intent, which is usually not hard to tell. Editors discuss, trolls attack or ridicule - I've had both happen to me. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 14:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@JWNoctis: Looks good... Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 22:40, 24 May 2016 (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.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

When a page receive significant amount of vandalism or disruption from unregistered or new users. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 03:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

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

When a page receive significant amount of vandalism or disruption from unregistered or new users, but does not warrant a semi-protection. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 03:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

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

When ArbCom consensus indicates, and WP:WHITELOCK is not sufficient. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 03:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

When a page receive significant amount of vandalism from autoconfirmed users, or edit warring between autoconfirmed editors. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 03:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated creation of non-encyclopedic article under the same title, or preemptive prevention against such attempts. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 03:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

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

When there is persistent disruption on talk page that warrants such. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 03:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Diff: Full protection requested for edit warring, semi given, turned out to be a case of sockpuppeting later. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 03:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?

In no circumstances may CSD criteria be bypassed in a speedy deletion proposal, the way I understand it. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 03:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

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.

Those diff probably won't stay there for long, sadly.

Diff: Per CSD A7 and G11, self-promotional article with probable conflict of interest and no credible claim of significance. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 03:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Diff: Per CSD A7, bare claim for some online community. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 03:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)