User:ThePlatypusofDoom/CVUA/Zupotachyon

This is where I'll help you become a better vandal fighter. Please ping me after you are done with an assignment.

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.

@ThePlatypusofDoom: I've installed Twinkle, Lupin's Anti-vandal tool, and Navigation popups. Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zupotachyon: Okay, next assignment: ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2017 (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. 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.

Vandalism edits are made expressly to disrupt Wikipedia and its goals, while good-faith edits are made with the intention to positively contribute, but do not qualify as encyclopedic or following Wikipedia's core content policies. :There are many different kinds of vandalism, but the majority falls under these categories:

Removal/alteration of content so as to turn the page unencyclopedic, in violation of Wikipedia's core content policies
Vandalism in the literal sense - page blanking, nonsense, offensive language: obvious defacing of the page in question
Misleading vandalism - adding/changing links to direct to the wrong target, hoax information, minor alterations to facts/data that would not normally be caught in a passing glance: edits that conceal their true intent to disrupt the project

There are also many different kinds of good-faith edits. What is most important in these cases is that clear goodwill is shown by the editor. Their edits are made with the intention to help Wikipedia, but for the following reasons they are not helpful:

Disruptive editing - while these edits may be made against consensus, they are still made because the user believes that they help Wikipedia. Discussing with the user, dispute resolution, ANEW, or ANI (as a last resort) should be used in this case.
"Nonsense" - test edits, gibberish: text that is not understandable. There are many reasons as to why edits may have become corrupted in the process of saving them, and some newer editors experiment so that they are more familiar with editing. Notifying the user about the incident, and, in the case of test edits, redirecting to their sandbox, is the first thing one should do. If the editor continues to add nonsense despite being warned, then it would be considered vandalism.
Bold edits - edits that have no precedent to justify their existence. Although repeated bold edits by editors demonstrating poor judgement (such as having their bold edits consistently reverted) constitutes disruptive editing and/or vandalism, bold edits often help Wikipedia create precedence for similar edits.
Copyright violations - Wikipedia has a strict policy on disallowing copyrighted text, which is, for the most part, not present on the rest of the Internet. New users are typically unaware of this, so they should be clearly notified why it is not allowed on the project. Repeated addition of copyright violations despite being warned is considered vandalism.

Note: These categories are ones I've run into during my time here - there are more, of course, but the majority of vandalism/good-faith edits I encounter fall under these.

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.

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Finished. Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zupotachyon: Good job! I've added the next assignment below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2017 (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

We warn users to notify them that their conduct is not appropriate for Wikipedia, so that they can change their behavior. Repeated warnings are given when they fail to change, and so that they can be dealt with at administrator noticeboards. Y

: 4im warnings are used when the edits made by the user are unquestionably and highly disruptive to Wikipedia. I'm not sure if I use a 4im or a 4 warning if the user already has (relevant) warnings on their talk page, though. Y Don't use a 4im warning if the user already has a warning on their talk page. A 4im warning is meant to be an only warning, so only use it if there hasn't been a warning in over a month. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

: Yes, you should always substitute templates when placing them on user talk pages. To substitute, do {{subst:[template]}}. Y

: Editors who've vandalized after receiving 4/4im warnings should be reported to AIV. Y

Please give examples of three different warnings (not different levels of the same warning and excluding the test edit warning levels referred to below), that you might need to use while recent changes patrolling and explain what they are used for.: {{subst:uw-spam1}} – Level 1 warning for the unencyclopedic addition of an external link. I'd generally use it in good-faith circumstances or when the editor's motive for adding the link is not explained by promotional reasons (like UAA-worthy usernames). Y

{{subst:uw-nor2}} – Level 2 warning for original research/synthesis added to an article. I'd probably use this if the editor was warned about it recently, but added a small amount of OR, or if they have had a history of adding OR.

{{subst:uw-vandalism3}} – Level 3 warning for vandalism. I'd use this when the editor's been warned about vandalizing, but continues to do so in an egregious way.

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

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff	My comment
1	Special:Diff/760114511	Repeated incorrect name change	Y
2	Special:Diff/760114788	Page blanking	I wouldn't skip to level 4 here, I'd go lvl 2 or 3
3	Special:Diff/760135662	False information - behaviorally similar to previous edit	I wouldn't skip a level here, I'd just go to level 2.
4	Special:Diff/760136007	False information	considering that this is a BLP, I would go level 2 or 3
5	Special:Diff/760136214	Test edit	Y
6	Special:Diff/760136280	False information	Y
7	Special:Diff/760136901	False information	Y
8	Special:Diff/760137316	Removal of information	Y
9	Special:Diff/760137492	Test edit	I don't think this is a test, I'd warn with level 2.
10	Special:Diff/760138651	False information	Y That's actually pretty funny, but not acceptable. The warning is fine, but I would consider using {{uw-Joke1}}
11	Special:Diff/760138570	Literal vandalism	Y
12	Special:Diff/760139223	Literal vandalism - behaviorally similar to previous edits	Y although the uw-joke2 template could also work.
13	Special:Diff/760139356	False information - behaviorally similar to previous edits	Y a level 2 warning could also work here.
14	Special:Diff/760438884	False information - reported to AIV	Y
15	Special:Diff/760441385	Literal vandalism - reported to AIV	Y I agree with skipping a level here, makes sense.

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Alright, finished. Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to admit that this gave me a good laugh. Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zupotachyon: Nice work! Next assignment is below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with trolls

Sometimes, disruptive users will try to harass and annoy you]] In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, ignore them, and leave a note at WP:ANI. If they vandalize your user page or user talk page, revert them and ignore them. Please read WP:DENY and WP:RBI.

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?: Trolls and vandals continue their disruptive editing due to attention they receive from their actions, and that their edits cause long-term effects on Wikipedia. By ignoring those users, we send a clear message to them that their efforts are useless and will go unnoticed. Thus, they deem it unnecessary to invest further attention to disrupting the project, and leave. Y Exactly.
How can you tell between a good faith user asking about why you reverted their edit, or a troll trying to be disruptive?: Good-faith users will typically attempt to reach out and/or respond to notifications on their talk page, so that they can understand why their edits were reverted. This can vary from using edit summaries to ask questions, or directly posting to talk pages or help boards like the Teahouse. Trolls will try to continue disruption, whether that be through continued edits behaviorally similar to their previous actions, or harassing those involved. Y

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:").

You don't need to do anything here, just tell me when you have finished reading this.

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Done. Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zupotachyon: Looks good! Your next assignment is below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2017 (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 (I am not an admin); 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). If you want to report manually, either place a CSD tag on the page, or report at WP:RFPP.

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

Pages should be semi-protected when significant disruption or vandalism of the page is conducted by numerous unregistered or non-autoconfirmed editors, or when they are highly visible pages important to the project (templates, modules, etc.). Y

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

Pages should be protected with pending changes when there is significant disruption or vandalism (like with semi-protection), but the page itself is infrequently edited. N It's for when there is vandalism by new users but also good edits by new users and IP's.

Shouldn't this be changed to just "pending changes" since the levels were removed? - Yeah, sorry.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Pages should be fully protected when there is persistent vandalism/disruption by autoconfirmed editors, or when they are vital to the project (templates, modules). Y If there's autoconfirmed users vandalizing, use extended confirmed protection.

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

Pages should be salted when they are repeatedly recreated, but are not encyclopedic and qualify for CSD action. Y

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

Talk pages should be semi-protected only when there is significant disruption/vandalism by unregistered/non-autoconfirmed editors that is not quickly resolved simply by reverting/warning. As I understand it, if this is done, there should be a sub-page for the talk page where those editors can comment. Y

@Zupotachyon: Nice job so far. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Correctly request the protection of one page; post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

Speedy deletion

@Zupotachyon: Here's the next assignment. Please read WP:CSD.

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

Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons) and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below.

ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Zupotachyon: Hello? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Zupotachyon: Hello? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)