User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/TheTechie

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/TheTechie.

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.

Already have it enabled. Also have RedWarn which I tend to use more often than Twinkle. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for informing. Cassiopeia talk 08:54, 4 May 2024 (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.

Answer: An example of a good faith edit that may have introduced issues is a spelling error or a grammatical issue. However, if it is making more substantial unhelpful changes, like blanking, mass changes to an infobox, or "[subject] sucks" would be an example of vandalism. I would only think it would be vandalism if it was a substanial, major, unhelpful change.

. The key here is intention. If an editor intends to help Wikipedia, and the edit is considered disruptive, they are still considered a "good faith" editor especially the new editor does not aware their edits are disruptive. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia. Editor might edit adds incorrect or unsourced information and this does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal; they key is their "intention". (Note: If an editor continues edit disruptively or adding unsourced content after 4 warnings, then they can be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and they may be blocked. Cassiopeia talk 08:54, 4 May 2024 (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.

Vandalism (sorry Cass I had to move them around, I put the vandalism in the good faith section)

Answer:

1. Special:Diff/1219732190 - unexplained content removal with seemingly canned edit summary

, The edit did have a edit summary and checked with source as per claim. Vandalism because of removed sourced content. (if editor make a claim of source content, we always check the source per info removed). Cassiopeia talk 08:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

2. Special:Diff/1219732654 - contains patent nonsense ("googly gaggly gee") replacing edit summary

. Cassiopeia talk 08:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

3. Special:Diff/1219576821 - deletion of table

. Removed of sourced content/table.

Note, Normally, vandalism edits are very "visible" that the edit is to harm Wikipedia. We particular look out for WP:BLP vandalism (living person]] for it contentious and might harm the subject's reputation. Cassiopeia talk 08:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


Good faith

Answer:

1. Special:Diff/1221958376 - not Vand b/c it added content that was redundant on accident

unsourced content. Cassiopeia talk 08:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

2. Special:Diff/1221610552 - not Vand b/c image without a caption

. Cassiopeia talk 08:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

3. Special:Diff/1221409719 - adding in "the east side" of, a specifier, without a source, not vand

not about source as it is an image.

Note: We usually encounter unsourced, wiki text errors, table formatting errors, Manual of Style, spellings mistake, copy edit (grammar, sentence structure and etc.) for good faith edit for editors do not know about Wikipedia guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 08:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

TheTechie 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.

1. You need to provide reasons, hist diffs - see diffs for instructions, of the/your edit and communication/warnings messages of the involved editor talk page for your answers.

2. (important) - do not revert more than 3 times within 24 hours on the same article unless the edits are absolutely considered blatant vandalisms for you will be blocked from editing. If you are not sure about the edits (whether it is a vandalism or not", pls do nothing and let other more experience/counter vandalism editors to take action.

3. pls note that the motto of CUVA is "Civility – Maturity – Responsibility." Welcome to CUVA. Stay safe and best.

If you have mistakenly giving the warning to any editor wrongly, pls remove the warning and apologies.

The is a assignment for communication to editor and we will discuss the topic in later date.

Cassiopeia talk 06:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

TheTechie Hi, Good day. I notice you have been active in Wikipedia and if you questions about Good faith, pls let me know. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 23:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Wait, so we have to put a reasoning for the reverts too?thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

TheTechie Yes, reasons is needed in the answer. For any assignment which Wikipedia guidelines are provided, then the guidelines need to be provide to reasons of your answers along with the hist diff. The reason is that the participant (you) have to show you understand the guidelines and how to apply them. The more details of your answer the better as at times other reasons/thoughts in your mind can show how well you can apply the guidelines. By the way, I have changed back the # to no and also add spacing between answers/questions as it is more easy for me view the page when reviewing and also in source mode editing the "#" does not give me which "no" I am reviewing on (I have other reasons as well). So pls dont change the spacing and the "no". Pls reply all your response/queries of the assignment "here" - the communication section" and not the program talk page. Ping when you have done. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 02:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Btw Cass the spacing between the no.s got screwed up when I was using VE, sorry. (And update: User:Cassiopeia: done) thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

TheTechie Reviewed. See comments. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. (Btw, pls bookmark this page on your computer for easy find). Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 08:54, 4 May 2024 (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: We warn users to tell them that the behavior they are doing is not appropriate and, in some cases, what to do instead.

. 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 09:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: If what they are doing is repeated in a short period or egregious in another context. For example, if a user keeps adding defamatory info to a BLP within the timeframe of 2 minutes, a 4im would be appropriate ({{Uw-defamatory4im}} in that case).

. Right. 4im is only for widespread and particularly egregious vandalism and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism. Cassiopeia talk 09:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes, and you do it by adding SUBST: to the beginning of the template name. E.g. if I have {{Uw-vandalism4im}}, I would add SUBST: before Uw but after the double opening brackets, e.g. {{Uw-vandalism4im}}. (I am curious why we have to subst them though.) Note: Twinkle, Redwarn, and Ultraviolet will subst for you.

. To substitute {{uw-test1}}, we place "subst" before the "uw" - {{subst:uw-test1}}. We always subt so the message on the talk page will not change even if the template is changed. Cassiopeia talk 09:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: Report them to AIV (Administrator Intervention against Vandalism), no questions asked. Twinkle and RW/UV can do this for you, and if you use those tools, they should tell you when there is already a report for the user.

. Cassiopeia talk 09:08, 2 June 2024 (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: For {{subst:Uw-vandalism2}}: Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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 used for when a user has vandalized and has been given a level one fairly recently or their recent edit was very disruptive that it warranted a level two. (At least, that's what I use it for.) The warning has no faith assumption.

. Cassiopeia talk 09:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Answer ii: For {{subst:Uw-defamatory4im}}: This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
- This is used when a user adds defamatory content egregiously. It assumes bad faith and replaces the need of levels 1-3.

. Cassiopeia talk 09:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Answer iii: For {{subst:Uw-disruptive1}}: Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
- This is used when a user has made disruptive edits that aren't egregious, but hasn't been warned. It assumes good faith and points the user to helpful resources and the sandbox (where they can make the edits that would be considered disruptive in the mainspace).

. Cassiopeia talk 09:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

TheTechie See assignment 2 above. Cassiopeia talk 23:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia

Done! thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

TheTechie Reviewed. See comments. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on. Pls note that assignment 3 is the hardest assignment for this program. Pls see the notes below for assignment 3.

Notes 1. We treat new and registered editors the same when it comes to vandalism. However, we will explain the warning at times, we for the new editors for they do not know the guidelines if the edits is not blandly vandalism.

2. Unsourced or disruptive edits are not considered vandalism. However, after final warnings of unsourced and disruptive and the editor still continuing in the same manner, then we can report the editor to AIV.

3. If we happen to warn the editor who makes the edit or we place vandalism warning message instead of unsourced warning message or in any way we are the one who makes the mistake, then pls strike out or remove the warning message on the editor page and "apologise".

4. If we are not sure of the editor intention that the editor's edit is a vandalism edit, do check they contribution log/history edit log, talk page and talk page history log to gauge the editor past edit pattern and understand their edit intention.

5. If we think the warning message do require further explain why the edit is not constructive or inappropriate or not adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines, then pls "always" post a separate message after the warning message and explain, educate the editor the issues of the edit along include the link of Wikipedia guidelines.

6. Other than vandalism edits, pls do not revert more than 3 times in 24 hours in regardless how disruptive the edits made by the editor, for you will be blocked. I have seen many times, counter vandalism editors who spent so much of the time, effort to protect Wikipedia and revert more than 3 times on the same page within 24 hours were blocked and they felt so disappointed and left Wikipedia for good. Pls also know that not all admins know all the areas of Wikipedia work as they choose what they want to patrol, so when we report an editors, we at times need to justify our action via links of the edits and explanation and the admin will act which they see fit.

Pls let know you have read the above. Cassiopeia talk 09:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia:

Done! Ready for next. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:53, 3 June 2024 (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.

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
Example 1	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[1]	Already had up to level 4 warnings today on this article from other users, so straight to AIV My report to AIV Thankfully they were very rapidly blocked by the admin [2] Later, the admin hid the edits made by this editor - see User Contributions so the diff in 3rd column no longer works unfortunately - see also admins deletion log [3]
Example 2	WP:NPOV	[4]	Added their own opinion "...well known for causing trouble" about a protest group, this editor already had level 1 NPOV warning today, so I gave a level 2 {{subst:uw-npov2}}.
1	Test edit
2	Test edit
3	Vandalism ( report to AIV)
4	Vandalism ( report to AIV)
5	WP:NPOV
6	WP:NPOV
7	WP:SPAM
8	Talking on the article
9	Unsourced
10	Original research
11	WP:NPOV
12	Your Choice
13	Your Choice
14	Your Choice
15	Your Choice

TheTechie Good day. If Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. Pls provide article name, hist diffs, editor talk page where you place the warning message, reports hist diffs and any links that is applicable. Also, pls provide the reasons/justification/explanate of your answers. Pls provide the hist diff for question states "report to AIV" and for question "Your Choice", pls sub the edit in nature - example sub "Your Choice" to "vandalism/unsourced". Stay safe and best.~~