User:Puddleglum2.0/CVUA/Visioncurve

Hello @Visioncurve:, and 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 in your answers, 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.

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.

The CVUA curriculum

There are several sections of the training course. In some of them, will be asking you to do perform practical exercises; in others, I will ask you to read certain policies and guidelines, and then ask you some questions about their content. To be clear, it is not a problem if you give the wrong answer to any of the questions - making mistakes and discussing them is a crucial part of the learning process. For that reason, it is important that you do not attempt to find previous users' training pages in order to identify the 'right' answers to give: all your answers should be your own, so that we can identify and address any misconceptions that you might have. There is no time pressure to complete the course: we will go at whatever pace works for you, and you can take a pause or ask questions at any point along the way.

Communication

Counter-vandalism work can result in very large watchlists, which can make it more difficult to monitor pages using that alone. For this reason, I will ping you whenever I update this page with some feedback or a new task; I would also ask you to ping me when you have completed a task, so that I get a notification telling me that it's ready for review. See WP:PING for details on how to do this if you aren't sure. -- puddleglum^2.0 05:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The start

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.: Puddleglum2.0, done!

RedWarn

RedWarn is a newer tool which adds upon the Twinkle interface, making things quicker and more user-friendly. It's completely optional and won't play a large part in this course, but if you want to use it, you can see the installation instructions on this page, along with comprehensive instructions.

Tell me below whether you installed RedWarn - it will affect the questions during this course.

Puddleglum2.0, done!

@Visioncurve: nice - a couple notes before we actually get started.

Especially because you're on a final warning against personal attacks, be careful to not make statements in the heat of the moment, the temptation to do so may come up, especially in counter vandalism work. I always use the preview button to read over my reply before I publish it - if there's anything that could possibly be construed as incivil, I'll catch it then. The only time I've been called out for incivility (albeit very minor and it had a quick resolution) was when I didn't use the preview button and published it in the heat of the moment, eager to get out a reply. Always take your time, it pays off.
make sure to sign your answers if you ping me in them - I won't get the pings otherwise. You can answer the questions then ping me at the bottom of the page when you're done if that works best.
If you are having any trouble or need help, feel free to come to my talk page.

Good luck! -- puddleglum^2.0 00:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

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. While it is often necessary to revert such edits, we treat them differently from vandalism, so it is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the tasks in this section.

Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.: Puddleglum2.0. Hey, how are you? Feels like I'm a sophomore at my high school again... Sorry, back to business) My opinion regarding the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit is that a good faith edit is an edit which does not qualify as an act of vandalism, but still should be reverted because it does not meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. A good faith edit may be anything from an unreferenced addition to contributing a copyright picture to an article. In this case, we should assume that this kind of edit was made most probably by a newcomer, and by "assuming good faith", try our best to explain and resolve the problem while staying civil. Whereas vandalism is editing deliberately intended to cause damage to Wikipedia articles or templates. For instance: adding indecency, swear words or irrelevant humor to a page, unexplained removal or blanking page content or templates from Wikipedia, and adding nonsense into a page.; Y great detail! YEs, you touched up on it, but really the nub of the matter is the intention behind any given edit - it can be summed up in one sentence: if an edit is intended to build the encyclopedia, it's good faith, if it isn't, then it's vandalism! If you can't determine the intention, always assume good faith (AGF).
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. Place diffs below

Examples of GF: 1, 2, 3.
Examples of vandalism: 1, 2, 3. -- Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 03:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for giving a hoot for the warning given to me last time and the obnoxious situation I'm in. Though I feel aggrieved to see two of your CVUA students blocked from editing - albeit for reasons unrelated to a counter-vandalism, I promise that I'll not let you down (will finish CVUA course successfully and won't become yet another of your blocked students). I will refrain from any provocation that may appear because of what we do and will not take part in the ensuing heated exchanges. Thanks again. Keep well and stay safe! Cheers! -- Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 05:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Visioncurve: Nice job! All your diffs are correct save one - I'd like to get your reasoning behind with you reverted the GF example 2 as good faith - it seems like a deliberate hoax to me, which is vandalism. I feel we can move on to the next section though, it's below! Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 05:38, 20 June 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

Why do we warn users?: To let them know that their edits are not in line with Wikipedia principles (poorly sourced, original research and etc) or are disruptive and that these edits have been reverted. We also warn users to inform them that repeating similar actions may have consequences.

:Y also to create a sort of paper trail for admins who are considering a block request.

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

It is the only warning given to users who are engaged in a clear and excessive vandalism. This warning is used primarily in the case of unacceptable or continuous disruption.

Y
Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it? (Hint - read the link before answering!)

I think no, mainly because substitution is intended for use when a permanent change is desired.

N always substitute talk page templates - Twinkle and Redwarn do do this automatically. Maybe skim WP:SUBST again? It's not very important, as the gadgets will do it for you, but it's good to know nonetheless.
What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?

I'll have him reported to ANI (I prefer using Redwarn for that, it's a very cool tool), and hope that one day I'll be able to block him/her myself for 3 days :),

actually, the right place to report vandals is WP:AIV, maybe you got the acronym wrong. :) ANI is for "chronic, intractable problems" - in other words, more complex cases then a simple troll who's going around and vandalising. We could always use more admins at AIV. :)

Puddleglum2.0. Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 10:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Visioncurve graded - read my notes above, and drop me a note here if you understand. After that, we'll move on provided you have no questions. Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 00:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, as a side note, just saw there were a bunch of earthquakes down in California, where you're userpage says you live - don't know if it was in your part of the state, but hope you're well! All the best, -- puddleglum^2.0 00:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, hi there. Unfortunately, or may be fortunately, I'm not there at the moment as I'm stuck on another continent with no way to get home, so it's difficult for me to determine the exact scale of the event from here, though I did contact my family and friends immediately when the opportunity arose, and I can infer that it was not as bad as had been initially reported (casualty wise). Nonetheless, I do feel for those affected by the earthquake at the epicenter (Central CA, while my family lives in the south, close to the state border) and now need to rebuild their homes, businesses and lives. I hope this is not a prelude of something bigger as it is a second such earthquake in CA in less than a week. Thanks for showing concern though, I appreciate that. And sorry to have answered those questions wrong, apparently, my mind was a bit occupied with other things at the time (I was thinking of whether to have a family-size pizza or continue my diet ;-). But, I have just re-read them carefully (WP:SUBST, AIV), and feel that we can move on. Take care! Puddleglum2.0. Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 06:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Visioncurve, really sorry for the delay! I'm glad to hear you weren't affected by the earthquakes, and hope your international situation gets resolved. :) It's not a problem about the wrong answers - it happens to the best of us. ;) Anyway, here's the next task, hopefully I'll have more time to grade it sooner. All the best -- puddleglum^2.0 02:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. For each revert/warning please fill in a line on the table below.

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff	Trainer's Comment
1	diff	I guess no comments are needed; warning type: only warning, level 4im (excessive disruption)	N good on the revert, questionable on the warning. 4ims are generally saved only for unnacceptable personal attacks or egregious BLP violations.
2	diff	mild vandalism, warned with level 1 (vandalism)
3	diff	clear vandalism, but decided to warn with level 1 (vandalism)
4	diff	had previously been warned once by a bot, had to post a level 2 warning (vandalism)
5	diff	childish vandalism, warned with level 2 (vandalism)
6	diff	true perhaps, but it's still a vandalism, warned with level 1 (vandalism)
7	diff	no comments are needed, it's pretty obvious. warned him/her with level 1 (vandalism)
8	diff	unacceptable language, warned with level 1 (vandalism)
9	diff	A child's vandalism, warned with a level 1 notice
10	diff

Puddleglum2.0, Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 07:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, something about the signature or ping must've stopped it from coming through, you're lucky it got to the top of my (huge) watchlist!

All save one are correct, see my note on answer one please. Great job on your part, awful job on my part keeping up with you! Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 01:57, 12 July 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. 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 it suffers from high levels of disruption or vandalism or edit warring from unregistered and new users. It is also helpful to prevent sockpuppets of blocked or banned users from editing.

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

Pending changes protection is used as an alternative to semi-protection to allow unregistered and new users to edit pages. Their edits are kept hidden from most readers until those changes are accepted by a pending changes reviewer.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

When it is disrupted with a persistent vandalism or edit warring from extended confirmed accounts.

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

This level of protection is useful for "bad" pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. While often this protection is permanent, temporary creation protection may be applied if a page is repeatedly recreated by a single user.

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

A "talk" page is usually semi-protected only for a limited time in the most severe cases of vandalism.

@Puddleglum2.0:, Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 07:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request at WP:RPP below. (Note - it might take you a while to come across a circumstance where this is required - we can continue with the next section of the course before you do this, but when the need arises please post here and ping me).

I used Twinkle to request a pp for one specific article where a continuous and disruptive content dispute and edit warring have taken place among extended confirmed users, here's the diff 1, and here's why 2 (07/17/2020 edits). @Puddleglum2.0:, Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 09:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

Speedy deletion examples

In past iterations of this course, students have been asked to go out and actually tag pages for deletion, but with the introduction of WP:ACPERM, the amount of straight vandalism that gets created directly in mainspace has reduced dramatically. As such, I'm going to ask you to say how you would act in a set of hypothetical scenarios. What would you do if you saw the page listed in each scenario? Note that not all scenarios may warrant speedy deletion.

Scenario 1

A user with the username "BobSucks" creates an article called "John Smith" that contains solely the following text:

John Smith is the worst elementary school teacher on the planet.

This page should be speedily deleted, because it qualifies as G.10. That article is created with a sole purpose to harass poor John Smith, and is entirely negative in tone and unsourced.

Scenario 2

A user with the username "GoodTimesLLC" creates a user page with the following text:

'''Good Times LLC''' is an organization dedicated to helping your children get the highest quality education at an affordable price. Visit our website at goodtimes.info and contact us at 123-456-7890.

I would tag this page for deletion as well, because it's G11. As is known, G11 applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and that need to be fully rewritten.

Scenario 3

A user creates an article titled "Edward Gordon" with the following text:

'''Edward Gordon''' (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 5,000 subscribers on YouTube.

Ummm, in my opinion, this article does and does not meet criteria for speedy deletion at the same time. Initially, it seems as though it simply does not adhere to the policy of keeping a neutral point of view, and therefore just needs to be addressed correspondingly. However, it may also qualify as A7 (No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)) and may warrant speedy deletion.

5,000 subs isn't enough to establish notability, I'd go ahead and A7 it.

Scenario 4

A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content:

Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz.

(Attribution: Ritchie333 came up with this scenario as a question to an old RfA candidate. I've borrowed his example here. Hint: Try Google searching a few key terms from this short article.)

Now I am baffled. Don't know what to say, but I would take it as A1, an article that lacks sufficient context, and leave it for an administrative review.

that would probably work, if I were an admin I would A1, but technically the correct answer is to redirect it to The Nice. I only know this because of chats with my trainer. :D

Scenario 5

A user creates an article that was clearly copied and pasted directly from another website, which states "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom of it. Would your answer be the same if it didn't state "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom?

G12, unambiguous copyright violations. Yup, it doesn't matter if it states "All Rights Reserved" or not as our chief copyright admin Diannaa says, it is better to assume that every work is protected by copyright unless you can establish that it is not. I hope that using her statement here is not a copyright violation, otherwise I am doomed, again...

again?

Scenario 6

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.

A2, good for speedy deletion.

that'd probably work, but I would first tag it for translation and see what happens.

Scenario 7

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.

This should be taken as a deletion request by the author.

or, after enough time has passed, CSD it as an empty page.

Scenario 8

A new user creates a user page with nothing but the following content:

Jlakjrelekajroi3j192809jowejfldjoifu328ur3pieisgreat

How would this scenario be different if the page was created in a different namespace?

I think I would employ MfD here.

delete would probably be result in such an MFD, but I would CSD it as a nonsense creation.

@Visioncurve: graded and section added, nice job! Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 02:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I hope that you are well, safe and sound. I guess I told that before, but I'd like to say that I again: I know you've been pretty busy lately and haven't had a lot of time. I appreciate all your efforts and time for me, and if there's anything I can do for you (like staying away with my CVUA training or something) just tell me. Remember, it is the time you have wasted for your rose that makes your rose so important. - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince. Cheers, @Puddleglum2.0:, Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 10:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Visioncurve: thank you! Yes, I've been busy with my job (one of the few not cancelled by COVID, all though definitely affected!) and other work for older relatives that they can't get done now. Do as much with CVUA as you want, but unfortunately, can't give you a guarantee on how fast I respond!

I do love de Saint-Exupery, another lovely quote from him! I'm a big fan of classical litererature, I've been fortunate enough to get a job relating to that area. It's really a dream!

Hope you're staying well as well, I don't do a ton of travel, so being stuck on a different continent is pretty unthinkable, but I hope you've found ways to enjoy it! I have graded the above section and you're next one is below. Cheers! -- puddleglum^2.0 00:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Revision Deletion and Oversight

Please read WP:Revdel and WP:Oversight.

Occasionally, vandalism will be so extreme that it needs to be removed from publicly accessible revision histories - the criteria for these are described in the policies linked above. Revision deletion hides the edit from anyone except admins; oversight provides an even greater level of restriction, with only oversighters able to see the comments. The threshold between the two is quite fine - I've been on the wrong side of it a few times. If you are in doubt as to whether revdel or oversight is required, the best bet is to forward it to the oversight team - whoever reviews it will be able to make the decision and act on it.

If you believe an edit needs to be revision deleted, how would you request that?

Editors may either send an e-mail to any of the administrators of the "Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle Revisiondelete requests" or use Template:Copyvio-revdel, but that's reserved only for requesting the redaction of copyrighted material from a page's history where the violations have been cleared from the current revision.

If you believe that it's so serious it needs oversight, how would you request that?

WP:Oversight states that an editor who wishes to suppress the relevant material and hide it from the view of other editors or even administrators need to contact the oversight team directly by e-mail, showing the reasons for their request and posting necessary URLs that are the subject of the oversight request. @Puddleglum2.0:, Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 07:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Puddleglum2.0: Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 10:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)