Hello Kleinpecan, 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 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 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.
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.
There are several sections of the training course. In some of them, will be asking you to do perform practical exercises (for example, patrolling recent changes or the abuse log in order to find problematic edits); in others, I will ask you to read certain policies and guidelines, and then ask you some questions about their content. 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.
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. Pahunkat ( talk) 20:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Twinkle is a highly useful gadget that can be enabled by any autoconfirmed user. It is used to automate a variety of maintenance tasks, including reverting vandalism, tagging pages for deletion and requesting page protection (you'll learn about these later in the course). See Wikipedia:Twinkle for more information about this tool.
Redwarn is a tool specifically designed for reverting vandalism and warning users. You can read its documentation, including how to install the tool, at Wikipedia:RedWarn.
Huggle is another anti-vandalism tool which comes in the form of a desktop application. To use Huggle you must have rollback permissions, so we won't be covering Huggle during this course - though feel free to ask me about it upon completion. You can read up about it at Wikipedia:Huggle.
There are two main ways to find edits to check for vandalism. The first is through the recent changes log - this can be accessed by clicking the 'Recent changes' link in the 'contribute' section at the left navigation bar, or navigating to Special:Recentchanges. The second way if through monitoring the abuse log, which lists edits which have tripped edit filters - these edits may still go through or may be disallowed depending on the filter. This can be accessed at Special:Abuselog.
When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful to an article, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. Note that good faith edits are different to completely good edits. While it is necessary to revert good-faith edits, we treat them differently from vandalism, so it is important to recognize the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit. Please read WP:AGF, WP:BITE and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the tasks in this section.
AGF is one of the most important policies to bear in mind when patrolling for vandalism - it's important that you get this right, so please take time to read the above policies carefully - if you have any confusion at all please raise it with me below. We'll stay on this section for as long as necessary, there's no limit on the time it takes to complete this section.
A new user makes an edit that needs to be reverted. On which circumstances would you AGF: Edits contrary to the manual of style, replacing the name of a BLP with "Wikipedia is stupid", edits that don't adhere to a neutral point of view, addition of unsourced (not defamatory) content, adding swear words to the text of an article. Include reasons
That's all correct - most of the times new users add unsourced content it's in good faith. With BLPs it can be hard to tell the intentions of SPAs (Single purpose accounts) that add unsourced and defamatory content to the article.
Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
Also look through their edit filter log (you may see entries where a user has tried to add obvious vandalism that was disallowed by an edit filter, and look at edit summaries. "added content" (-5,720) is clearly false...
Please explain why it is important to not to WP:BITE newcomers whose edits may have been made in good faith
You come across an edit, and you find yourself unsure as to whether it was made in good or bad faith. In cases like these do you treat the edit as made in good faith or bad faith, and why?
for good faith. Remember that this is assume good faith.
Type | Diff | Trainer's comment |
---|---|---|
Good-faith edit | 1018203667 | Whilst unhelpful at the bottom of the article when it should have already been covered, the IP clearly had the intention of improving the encyclopedia |
Good-faith edit | 1018211626 | Nothing I can see to suggest bad intentions |
Good-faith edit | 1018212936 | We don't include such information in short descriptions, but this is not vandalism and the editor had good intentions. |
Vandalism | 1018213282 | |
Vandalism | 1017850865/1018214672 | Obviously false and disrupts the encyclopedia. |
Vandalism | 1018216548 | Vandalism. Filter log is also telling. Not sure about their other live edit though - seems to be made in good faith, interestingly. |
Hopefully you'll have noticed that RedWarn allows you three primary options for performing a rollback - green, blue, and red links (see the screenshot). All three will revert all of the most recent consecutive edits made by a single user to a page. The orange button should only be used when a user blanks a large portion of the page without an edit summary that explains why - this is called unexplained removal of content.
Try to use these buttons where possible. The green and the blue ones allow you to add an edit summary - it's described as 'optional', but you should not treat it as such - always leave a brief edit summary, even if it's just 'Rv test edit', or 'Rv unexplained removal of content', or whatever. Use the green one when you think it's a good faith mistake, and the blue one when you're not sure. Only use the red one when you are certain that it is unambiguous vandalism - it saves time, because it leaves a generic edit summary, and all of them will take you directly to the talk page of the person you have reverted, to allow you to use the 'Warn' option to give them a warning. (Also note that you can use the purple "restore this version" button when you need to revert edits by multiple users.) There are more options for 'rollback' buttons if you click the three dots at the very end of the menu, for edits that require reverting because they violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines (for example edits uncompliant with the manual of style, undisclosed paid editing and enforcing violations of WP:3RR).
Likewise, with Twinkle there are three 'rollback' links - once again they are red, blue and green. You should apply the same principles of judgement as for the buttons in RedWarn when deciding which link to use.
Note that, per WP:3RR, An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. However, exceptions apply (see the 3RR page) - including reverting blatant and obvious vandalism. If you're not sure, it's best not to go past three reverts and attempt to engage the editor in discussion.
Hello Kleinpecan, please find the start of the training page above. I see you're not new to this sort of work, which is great - the course shouldn't be too hard. The above mainly deals with installing a few gadgets (I see you have TW already, RW is good to install but not necessary for the work), and then one of the most important policies to bear in mind when reverting edits - AGF. Once you're finished, please ping me below so I can have a look at it :-) Pahunkat ( talk) 20:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
When you use RedWarn or 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 and 4im, 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 note that most of this is automated on RedWarn; you'll need to pick this only if you pick the blue button.
and to help constructive editors improve
Always substitute
For us non-admins, it's off to AIV.
# | Diff of your revert, and warning if applicable. | Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff | Trainer's Comment |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Reversion, warning | Unexplained content removal | |
2 | Reversion, warning | Replacing the name of a city in infobox with "Dababy Car". Continued to do this after receiving a fourth warning; reported to AIV | |
3 | Reversion, warning | Replacing random words with "kundi" | clear vandalism if you know what the word means |
4 | Reversion, warning | Article hijacking | |
5 | Reversion, warning | BLP violation | Now revdeleted |
6 | Reversion, warning | Might have gone for a NPOV warning | |
7 | Reversion, warning | ||
8 | Reversion, warning | I usually use a 4im for image vandals | |
9 | Reversion, warning | NPOV warning might be suitable here as well | |
10 | Reversion, warning |
Hey Kleinpecan, please see the next section above. Twinkle automates the warning process for us, but I find it helpful to have knowledge of some basic templates, especially when editing on mobile. Note that it's perfectly acceptable to give "warnings" to a user who's made edits in good faith that needed to be reverted (e.g. a {{ uw-unsourced1}} to someone who adds an unsourced statement) - the level one templates for most warnings aren't likely to chase off new editors and help them to find their way around. Pahunkat ( talk) 20:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
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 RedWarn menu (on the right-hand side, the RPP option) to request page protection. Twinkle can be used to request speedy deletion (the TW menu next to the search bar on top, the CSD option) and also request page protection (the RPP option on the menu).
Please read the protection policy.
{{tick} I get the gist of what you mean here and it's the right idea. PC can also be used for pages where there's a fair amount of vandalism from non-AC but also constructive contributions from many non-AC.
{{
tl}}
or {{
citation needed}}
".
The title is unsuitable for further creation
Hello Kleinpecan, please find the next section above - this time it's on page protection. The exercises for speedy deletion will come in the next section. As always, please ping me below when you're finished or if you need help. Best, Pahunkat ( talk) 19:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Please read WP:CSD.
Also, what is the significance of the letter prefixed to each criteria?
In past iterations of this course, students have been asked to go out and tag multiple mainspace 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.
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.
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.
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 5,250 subscribers on YouTube.
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.)
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?
A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.
A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
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 draftspace? How about in article space, or in a user sandbox?
Hello Kleinpecan, please see the next section above. Sorry for the delay - I didn't get the ping - note they only work with a four-tilde signature. Best, Pahunkat ( talk) 19:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
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 articles 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.
There's a category of admins willing to Revdel per email requests, I usually email Oshwah :-)
Hello Kleinpecan, please find the next section above, this time in resisting deletion and oversight. If you have any questions or finish, once again please ping me below. Best, Pahunkat ( talk) 21:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol the User creation log to check for new users with inappropriate usernames (note that you can set this to view 500 users rather than the default 50 - I find that easier to scroll through quickly, and the link on my userpage takes you there directly). There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed:
Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particular attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.
Real names are permitted, could also stand for Bob Gates or similar
Impersonation
Report to UAA
Form of username is encouraged - whether they violate PAID/COI is another matter
Impersonation
I'd probably report to UAA as a disruptive username.
I hope this never happens, but as you participate in counter-vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible that you may come across a threat of physical harm. In the past, we have had vandals submit death threats in Wikipedia articles, as well as possible suicide notes. The problem is, Wikipedia editors don't have the proper training to evaluate whether these threats are credible in most cases.
Fortunately, there's a guideline for cases like this. Please read Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm carefully and respond to the questions below.
, but always contact an admin
Always report threats
Hello Kleinpecan, I've marked the section on usernames - no major issues there. Here's a short section on how to deal with emergencies - once again, please ping me when done. Thanks, Pahunkat ( talk) 18:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
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 vandalize your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. Please read WP:DENY.
Some vandals are here just for attention. If we deny them recognition, it isn't fun for them anymore and they might stop.
Hello Kleinpecan, great work on the section above. This new one is a short one about how to WP:DENY recognition to the trolls on Wikipedia. Best, Pahunkat ( talk) 08:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
In light of your recent contributions, I expect that if you apply for the rollback permission at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, an administrator would be happy to enable it on your account, but first we should demonstrate that you understand what the tool is, and the responsibilities that go along with it.
The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced counter vandalism operatives to revert vandalism with the click of one button, not unlike the "rollback" button that you've already been using in Twinkle. This would give you a new rollback button in addition to the three you've been seeing in Twinkle. The new rollback button is slightly faster than the Twinkle rollback button, but more importantly, having the rollback right gives you access to downloadable counter-vandalism software like Huggle and Stiki.
If you're interested, take a look at our rollback guideline at WP:Rollback and feel free to answer the questions below. The rollback right is not an essential part of this course, so if you're not interested, feel free to say so and we'll skip this section.
Use it to revert blatant, obvious vandalism.
Never use rollback to revert an accidental rollback, per what you said - use twinkle or undo and give an edit summary such as "rv accidental rollback"
Hello Kleinpecan, I've marked the section you just completed. This is the last section on theory, after that comes a 5-day monitoring period and then the final exam - passing this will mean graduation from the CVUA. This is on the Rollback user right - it isn't necessary for counter-vandalism work, but it very useful as it is fast and gives you access to automated tools such as Huggle. You can request rollback after completing the above section. Best, Pahunkat ( talk) 08:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Congrats, that's the end of the theory! Now that we've been through everything that you need to know as a vandal patroller, you will be given a 5 day monitoring period. During this time, you are free to revert vandalism (and edit Wikipedia) as you normally do; I will monitor your progress in counter-vandalism. If there are any issues, I will raise them with you below and if you have any problems or difficult decisions, you are free to ask them below. After five days, if there's been no major issues, you will take the final test; passing this will mean you graduate from the CVUA. Good luck!
5 day period - Starts 10:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 05:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello Kleinpecan, you can request the rollback permission now if you wish. You're now on a 5 day monitoring period, details above, which precedes the final exam. If you have any questions during the monitoring period, feel free to ping me below - I'll do likewise if I need to let you know about something. Good luck! Pahunkat ( talk) 10:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Please read each of the following questions carefully, and ensure that you have responded fully - some of them ask you to expand on what you would do in different situations. When responding to numbered questions please start your response with "#:" (except where shown otherwise - with **). You don't need to worry about signing your answers.
If they are adding a non-notable entry to that list, no action should be taken - if they are adding a notable one or editing an article about a P Miller then report to UAA where they will be soft-blocked until they can verify their identity or change their username.
Number | Diff | Trainer's comment |
---|---|---|
1 | Special:Diff/1013882475 | |
2 | Special:Diff/1013949150 | |
3 | Special:Diff/1025396674 | |
4 | Special:Diff/1025644203 | |
5 | Special:Diff/1026133500 |
Number | Diff | Trainer's comment |
---|---|---|
1 | Reversion, warning | |
2 | Reversion, warning | |
3 | Reversion, warning | |
4 | Reversion, warning | Question: How do you know that he didn't lose the tournament?
|
5 | Reversion, warning |
Hello Kleinpecan, and good luck! The final exam is above - ping me once finished... Pahunkat ( talk) 08:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Kleinpecan, Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy, on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction and graduation from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with a score of 98%. Well done! Pahunkat ( talk) 08:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
As a graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox (make sure you replace your enrollee userbox) as well as the graduation message posted on your talk page (this can be treated the same as a
barnstar).
{{User CVUA|graduate}}
:
This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate. |