Comment: Copied from
User:Pahunkat/CVUA/Skingo12.
Pahunkat (
talk) 16:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello Skingo12, 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) 10:52, 27 January 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.
Done
Skingo12 (
talk) 13:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
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. I'd suggest starting off with monitoring recent changes.
Vandalism is when a user intentionally tries to disrupt Wikipedia, while good faith editing is where a user is not trying to be malicious, but merely testing or making mistakes simply because they dont know what they are doing wrong. Skingo12 ( talk) 16:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
In terms of the definition of vandalism vs Good faith. If you revert a good-faith edit, remember to leave a message on the user's talk page to help them - even a welcome message is good.
Question: How would you distinguish edits between that which are vandalism and that which are made in good faith?
Sorry, forgot about that last bit. Some obvious red flags would be the edit description not matching what was done, for example very often a user will simply say “grammar” and then just add large amounts of text. Another red flag would be removal of content without any edit description. Skingo12 ( talk) 21:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
One of my favourite diffs: "added content" (-5,720)
[1]. Also look for previous warnings and the user's previous contribs for an indicator.
It is important not to bite the newcomers as they are all possible contributors, biting them would cut off the supply of new editors. In addition, quite a lot of edits are made by unregistered users, especially (in my experience) to people or media that they are interested in, where they update or improve articles that would take longer to be noticed by more experienced editors. Skingo12 ( talk) 16:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Precisely
Type | Diff | Trainer's comment |
---|---|---|
Good-faith edit | [2] | ![]() |
Good-faith edit | [3] 2nd attempt | ![]() |
Good-faith edit | [4] | ![]() |
Vandalism | [5] | ![]() |
Vandalism | [6] | ![]() |
Vandalism | [7] | ![]() |
Hope I did the links properly! Skingo12 ( talk) 13:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
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 Skingo12, please see the above. When you're finished, please ping me below so I can take a look Just so I can have an idea, whereabouts would you place yourself in terms of Counter-vandalism work? Thanks :-) Pahunkat ( talk) 10:54, 27 January 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, 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.
We warn users to show them that there are editors on Wikipedia who “care” and to (hopefully) make them change their mind about vandalism. We also do it to notify them that they know where and when they have made a mistake. Skingo12 ( talk) 19:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
To let them know they've made mistakes. Vandals might not stop, good-faith users may have a read and change. It isn't always clear whether a user is acting in good faith, so always AGF if you're unsure.
In severe cases of vandalism ( this incident is one of the main reasons I do anti-vandalism) where it is clear that is not an accidental edit or possibly good faith. Skingo12 ( talk) 16:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
It is also permitted in cases where there is excessive disruption (for example, if a user has reverted multiple times in a short space of time to restore vandalism).
It should always be used if it is a warn or welcome template on a user talk page and is done by adding subst: to a template, eg “
![]() |
This is an example of a template. For help with templates, see Help:Template. |
”. Skingo12 ( talk) 19:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
For future reference, you can use nowiki tags to insert markup without it being converted (e.g. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).
Usually I use the twinkle “ARV” function to add them to the administrator intervention/blocking notice board. Skingo12 ( talk) 16:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Question: How about if you needed to report manually?
Then I would head over to the ARV notice board and include a link to the user, and the diff of the most recent vandalism. Skingo12 ( talk) 01:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I think you know what you're talking about -
WP:AIV.
# | Diff of your revert | Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff | Trainer's Comment |
---|---|---|---|
1 | [8] | Obviously vandalisim, warned with twinkle. | ![]() |
2 | [9] | Obvious vandalisim | ![]() |
3 | [10] | Removal of content with no explanation, notified with twinkle. | ![]() |
4 | [11] | More content removal, just noticed my red warn error. | ![]() |
5 | [12] | Addition of non notable person, warned with twinkle (I assume this is part of the tiktok issue?) | ![]() |
6 | [13] | Changed from library to a shop, warned with twinkle. | ![]() |
7 | [14] | Obviously vandalism, immature addition to the name, I initially selected the wrong warning level. | ![]() |
8 | [15] | Again, obviously vandalism, warned with twinkle (I assume it is once again the TikTok thing) | ![]() |
9 | [16] | More obvious vandalism, I’m not completely familiar with all the terms used, however I think it’s something sexual? | ![]() |
10 | [17] | Again name changing, evidently vandalism, warned with twinkle. | ![]() |
Skingo12, Please find the new section above. Now we're looking at warning and reporting users. I've added feedback to the questions in part 1, though you've done really well there - please read it and respond if necessary. Once again, ping me when done or if you have a question below. Thanks, Pahunkat ( talk) 16:39, 27 January 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.
When there is a high amount and rate of IP and new user vandalism. Skingo12 ( talk) 22:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
And in content disputes between non-autoconfirmed editors / IPs
When there is regular vandalism but not at a high rate. Skingo12 ( talk) 22:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
When there is an edit war or content dispute (usually by extended confirmed users), to ensure that every change has reached consensus on the talk page which can then be reviewed by an administrator. Skingo12 ( talk) 22:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Persistent disruption / content dispute between extended-confirmed users.
When an article is frequently created, but has already been deleted, without overturning the deletion decision. Skingo12 ( talk) 22:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Repeatedly recreated and deleted articles
Usually only if there is frequent vandalism and often a second unprotected talk page is created where the restricted users can leave good faith messages. (Also is it necessary for me to sign every question answer?) Skingo12 ( talk) 22:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
And if they are protected, it will only be for a very short amount of time. I haven't seen the 'second unprotected talk page' scenario before. And no, you don't have to sign every answer.
Hi Pahunkat, I requested page protection with persistent vandalism from a range of Ip and new users. Cheers, Skingo12 ( talk) 11:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Please read WP:CSD.
[18]
Done This one was interesting, it had fake references.
Skingo12 (
talk) 01:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I can't see it now but it's been deleted under
WP:CSD#U5. I'm guessing it was probably a personal webpage based on experience, and these are often tagged under
WP:CSD#G11 as well.
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.
Tag under G10, report username to UAA noticeboard. Skingo12 ( talk) 00:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
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 under G11, unquestionably a purely promotional page, I would also report the user to the UAA noticeboard. Skingo12 ( talk) 00:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Clear example of a G11, and whilst many admins will see the username when deleting,
WP:CORPNAME applies here so a UAA report is warranted.
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.
Tricky, having read the guidance I would first check it was actually true, if so I would tag AfD for not meeting notability guidelines. However I believe I can’t tag under A7 as it technically meets WP:CCS. Skingo12 ( talk) 00:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a case of A7. The claims of significance are:
And most of the time there's no way to verify the claims either. This is a bit of WP:NPPS more than CVU but it's good to know all the CSD criteria because you'll come across these types of pages when doing counter-vandalism work.
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.)
I did a quick search and (among other things) found this
The Nice in which both Bazz Ward and “Lemmy” are mentioned. I have read the guidance and am not too sure about it so I would probably tag under A1, or AfD it for not complying with the manual of style, being hard to understand and possibly for being a duplicate/redundant?.
Skingo12 (
talk) 00:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Question: Could this be made into a redirect?
I have very limited (no) experience with redirects, however I don’t think it could be a redirect as the articles are on two different topics.
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?
After reading the guidance if it did have “All rights reserved” at the bottom then I would tag under G:12. If it did not have “All rights reserved” at the bottom then I would add the {{copypaste}} template. Skingo12 ( talk) 01:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Either scenario, tag under G12.
A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.
If it already existed on another wikimedia project then I would tag under A2, otherwise I would tag with {{Not English}} and list at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Skingo12 ( talk) 01:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
I would tag under A3 after asking the user why they blanked it. Skingo12 ( talk) 01:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
G7 is probably better.
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?
It’s fine for them to make a user page with this, however I would probably inform them about Wikipedia’s test edit policy. If it were draft space I would tag with G1, in article space I would tag with G1 as well and in sandbox I would inform about test edits (as long as it’s not a sandbox subpage, in which case I would tag with G2). Skingo12 ( talk) 01:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
You've got the right idea on which namespaces warrant deletion and what you would use. However, if it was a sandbox subpage I think it's fine since this should, in theory, still be a user sandbox (this isn't really mentioned in the policy). I wouldn't inform them of the test edit policy if they put that content in the sandbox, since the sandbox is where we direct users to make test edits.
Skingo12, sorry for the late marking - please see the next section above. Please read my feedback from the last section - there's one question to do, otherwise everything's fine. Once again, ping me below if you have any questions. Thanks, Pahunkat ( talk) 13:34, 28 January 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.
I would email a administrator with the [[Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests]] category.
I would email the oversight team. You can use special:emailuser to email the oversight team.
Skingo12 - once again, sorry for the delay. Well done in the previous task - see above for the next task, and please read the feedback I've left you there. Once again, ping me below if you have any questions :-) Pahunkat ( talk) 17:23, 29 January 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.
Well it is probably unlikely that this is actually Bill Gates, so I would report to UUA after making sure that it is not actually bill gates (although it would be hard to check), as it blatantly breaches the misleading rule.
This could mean Bob Gates. Only report if they edit articles close to Bill Gates, etc. You don't need to verify if this is Bill Gates or not, the account will be softblocked and given the option to create a new account or verify their identity through UTRS
Would report to UAA as it is unlikely that it accidentally very similar to your username (unless it is a reference to something).
This is a real-life example. The user in question was a LTA. See
Pakunhat
Would report to UAA for blatant misleading username.
This is a minor thing and I think is fine.
This form of username is encouraged, but worth keeping an eye on their edits in case they do
this or similar in violation of NPOV
First check if the user actually had syop permissions and if so do nothing, however if not then report to UAA.
This is obviously an attempt at impersonation or misleading, my name is not a reference to anything so straight to UAA.
I would notify the user of policy with a tag as it could be commercial/shared.
This is a potential violation of
WP:CORPNAME. As a result, check to see if they have edited about the topic. If they have, a report to UAA is warranted. If they've been editing about something completely unrelated (e.g. trains), leave a note explaining why their username might be seen as a violation by some editors.
Report to UAA as it implies intent to vandalise.
Report to UAA because it is a disruptive and offensive username
I did a quick search and found a similarity to Christopher Smith (English actor) and Christopher Smith (director). Because of this I would notify the user with the {{subst:uw-username}} tag.
There are bound to be multiple Christopher Smiths in the world. 'Christopher Smith' isn't really as notable as Joe Biden either. Because of this, only report to UAA if they edit the mentioned articles
I would check for any similarities, but if not it seems fine (unless I am unaware of a reference).
Oshwah is an admin on enwiki. Does this change anything? Pahunkat ( talk) 13:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I would put it on the UAA noticeboard for similarity.
Skingo12 (
talk) 18:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a non script character so I would use the {{subst:uw-uall}} tag or, depending on their edits, report to UAA.
I would report to UAA as a confusing username.
Disruptive username
Skingo12, here's the next section. Once again, when you're finished or ping me below :-) Pahunkat ( talk) 10:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
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.
Contact the wikimedia fondation at [email protected] and then contact an admin via IRC or (preferably for me) discord. I would include the diff.
Still report it as per policy the evaluation is to be left to foundation staff.
Skingo12, please see above for the next section. It's short, but very important. Once again, ping me below if you have any questions and when you're finished. Thanks, Pahunkat ( talk) 15:59, 2 February 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.
As very often their motivation for vandalism is others response or recognition. Denying them this makes vandalism seem boring, and will hopefully take away their motive for vandalism.
Often they get pleasure out of getting recognition from other users.
Skingo12 - see above for the next section. This is quite important when dealing with trolls - especially important when dealing with some LTAs which live off attention. WP:BEANS is also a worthwhile read. Once again, ping me below when done. Pahunkat ( talk) 19:05, 2 February 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.
When there is repeated obvious vandalism or a repeated misguided user where it would take too long to revert every edit.
Question: What do you mean by 'repeated misguided users'? And when may it not be used?
Sorry I for got to do that bit. It shouldn’t be used when it is necessary to leave an edit summary or to revert good faith edits. As for the misguided user part, I was quoting the guidance [19], but I suppose it would mean to revert multiple edits which would be tedious to do manually, however it would be important to notify the user and provide a reason at the relevant place, for example the talk page.
I haven't read that arbcom case before, but I see where you get that from now. You cannot use rollback in content disputes.
You could rollback the rollback (can be confusing) or, preferably, just undo restore the version from before the rollback.
Use twinkle to 'rollback' your rollback, leaving an edit summary such as "undoing accidental rollback".
No, as it only leaves a generic edit summary.
Skingo12, you've done well in CVUA so far, here's a section about the rollback permission we briefly talked about earlier on. Before applying, you should complete the questions above. It isn't necessary to apply for rollback - RW and Twinkle do just as well, but it gives you a quick way to remove obvious vandalism and enables you to use tools such as WP:HG. Pahunkat ( talk) 09:08, 3 February 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 12:00 UTC, 03.02.20
Skingo12, any questions during the monitoring period, please ping me below. Thanks, Pahunkat ( talk) 11:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Skingo12 - FYI SQUARE FEET MARBLE appears to be a company name. Pahunkat ( talk) 12:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Pahunkat, I just had a question: Is it appropriate to jump to a level 2 or 3 warning? I know it is possible to go to level 4 instantly and have seen some other occasions where users have started on level 2 or 3. Cheers, Skingo12 ( talk) 11:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Skingo12, so far everything seems fine - lots of work done today, well done! A few things I picked out from a few diffs I looked at:
Other than that, I'm impressed - good reports to AIV/UAA, speedy deletion (I recommend enabling a speedy deletion log in your Twinkle preferences, mine is here), users warned and vandals reverted. A brilliant start :-) Pahunkat ( talk) 21:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Pahunkat, just to let you now I was approved for Pending changes and Rollback rights. Thanks, Skingo12 ( talk) 08:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
That's all I could find - 5 small issues out of at a large number of reverts. Apart from that everything else was good. Given everything above is minor I think we're alright to go onto the final exam, before we do you have any questions about the above? Pahunkat ( talk) 14:37, 8 February 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 this was their fist time I would revert it and give a level one warning. At this point it would be treated as good faith. If they had done it once before then i would issue a level 2 warning which doesn't specify as good or bad faith, its just a note. After that it would be treated as bad faith.
At that point I would give a level 2 warning, which has doesn't include a faith assumption. If they then repeated it I would issue a level 3 warning that assumes bad faith and then after that issue a final level 4 warning and then after that report to the AIV noticeboard. Obviously I would remove every signature they added to the article as well.
Question: - A level 2 warning seems ok, but for what - uw-articlesig is a single issue warning meaning that for this template, there's only a generic template with no levels.
IN that case I would use {{subst:uw-vandalisim2}}. {{uw-disruptive2}} would be my preference, along with a quick note above signatures in articles.
The first time I would revert and issue a level 1 vandalism warning (which assumes good faith). After that I would follow the warning system until it is necessary to report to AIV after a level 4 warning. Per below
As above, I would revert and issue a level 1 test edit warning (assumes good faith). Then I would wan and revert following the warning system until it is necessary to report. Level 1,2,3,4 warnings don't really have a good-faith / bad-faith level associated with each level. However, 4im warnings should only be issued to clear bad-faith editors.
The first time I would restore the content, with a edit summary 'If you believe this is incorrect information then please bring it up on the talk page with reliable sources'. I would also issue a level 1 content removal warning and include the summary in the optional comment box. If they continue to remove the content without reaching consensus or providing a reliable source then I would continue restoring and warning with that summary until they stop, provide a reliable source or it is necessary to report them. Be wary of
WP:3RR, if it's ambiguous it's best to engage the user in conversation.
I would use {{subst:uw-delete1}}.
I would use {{subst:uw-attempt1}}.
I would use {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}.
I would use {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}.
I would use {{subst:uw-delete1}}.
I would use {{subst:uw-test1}}.
I would use {{subst:uw-vandalism}}.
Question: - Which level warning?
Oh sorry, it would be {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}.
If it was uncited then I would use {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}.
I would use {{subst:uw-delete4im}}. If they did it again I would report to AIV.
I would report to the UAA noticeboard with diff links and a summary.
Question: UAA?
Oh sorry, I meant AIV.
Depending on the issues I have had with the user I would either report to the administrators noticebard for a personal attack or would use {{subst:uw-npa1}} to would use {{subst:uw-npa4im}} depending on the issues and anything else they did. (eg. talk page messages).
I would use {{subst:uw-spam1}}.
I would use {{subst:uw-adf3}}.
I would use {{subst:uw-test1}}.
I would tag as G11.
I would tag under G3 after checking the article history for a un-vandalised article version that could be reverted to. - I'd prefer A7 here, but G3 could be used especially with this tiktok thing going on right now.
I would tag under A1 or alternatively AfD it. - A1. Never AfD an article like this where there's no context.
I would G3 as a blatant hoax.
Tag under G3 as vandalsim. This comes under G3, G10 and I've even had it argued under A10. But G3/G10 is the best criteria here.
I would tag under A1.
Report to UAA for implied shared use and examine edits to determine if it was promotional as well.
Report to UAA for promotional.
If it wasn't actually a bot report to UAA for misleading.
Report to UAA for 'confusing' and disruptive.
If not actually a admin report to UAA for misleading.
Report to UAA for shared use.
Report to UAA for confusing (can disrupt the signing format).
I did a quick google search and found
this but could easily be a real name as well so if they haven't edited anything to do with the company leave alone, however if they had report to UAA for promotional or, depending on the edits, warn.
Report to UAA for blatantly misleading.
Rollback should not be used in a content dispute, if the editors are not reaching consensus on the talk page then request page protection to prevent vandalism and end the edit war by forcing the changes to be approved by an admin/extended confirmed.
Question: Whilst the above is true, can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
You can, but only if it is obvious and depending on the severity and the war I may just wait until the warring editors have been blocked or the page protected.
You cannot get into an edit war if reverting blatant and obvious vandalism. If the edits are not clear vandalism, it's best to attempt to engage the other editor in discussion on a talk page.
To the AIV noticeboard with links to the vandalism diffs and a short summary.
Arbitration committee following the guidance there.
WP:ANI.
WP:ARBCOM is a last resort, for situations which the community cannot handle and there have been various attempts to solve the problem.
To the UAA noticeboard with the reasons for reporting.
Since the personal attack noticeboard was deleted to the main administrator noticeboard with diff links and a summary about who was attacked and how.
To the
WP:AN3 notice board with a link to the page and a summay.
To the BLP noticeboard.
Skingo12, please see the exam above. Take your time - there's no rush to complete it. If you have any questions ping me below, likewise when you are finished. Best of luck! Pahunkat ( talk) 15:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Pahunkat, sorry for my stupid questions! I am just pinging you to let you know have now finished the exam. For part 2 I assumed they had no prior warning unless specified. Cheers, Skingo12 ( talk) 12:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Skingo12, 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 93%. Well done! Pahunkat ( talk) 21:04, 12 February 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. |