User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/TheDoDahMan

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/TheDoDahMan|talk page]].

Make sure you read through Wikipedia:Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

How to use this page

This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.

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.

`The start`

Twinkle

Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.

Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.

Hi. Twinkle has been installed. I have tested it in the sandbox, I am limiting my use to WARN, WELCOME,SHARED IP, TALKBACK, LAST. Now I need to go and hunt down the examples below.TheDoDahMan (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2019 (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.

Ans:In my limited experience, vandalism is usually of the silly kind and is readily observed or it is blanking of large sections. Users who insert messages like "test" or "hello" are probably not vandals and are just unfamiliar with WP. They get directed to the sandbox. Other good faith edits may be the insertion of unreferenced material, especially for elections and sporting events. Essentially a good faith edit is an attempt to improve WP, although it may be misguided. Vandalism is an attempt to deliberately damage WP in some way. (I'm not very happy with this answer but its the best I can come up with right now...)TheDoDahMan (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

. A good faith edits are those with good Intentions but due to the lack of understanding Wikipedia policy, inexperience editing or mistakes where edits are not suitable or unhelpful. Whereas vandalism are those edits with bad intentions where edits harm to Wikipedia.

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". CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Please find and provide hist diff of five examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and five 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.

Good faith

1. Ex-GF1

[[1]]

TheDoDahMan (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

2. Ex-GF2

[[2]]

TheDoDahMan (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

3. Ex-GF3

[[3]]

TheDoDahMan (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

4. {{Diff2|899078177|Ex-GF4

[[4]]

TheDoDahMan (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

. I think this is the hist diff you referred to - see [5]. About your edit summary - if an edit is vandalism then it is not a test edit or good faith edit. Test edit or good faith edits could be nonconstructive/disruptive but they are no vandalism. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

5. {{Diff2|899082750|Ex-GF5

[[6]]

TheDoDahMan (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

. I think this is the hist diff you referred to - see [7]. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

6. Ex-GF6

[[8]]

TheDoDahMan (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

1. EX-Van1

[[9]]

Issued Vandalism-1 warning.

TheDoDahMan (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

. Especially the edit summary didnt match the nature of the edit itself. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

2. Ex-Van2

[[10]]

Issued Vandalism-1 warning.

TheDoDahMan (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

3. ex-Van3

[[11]]

Issued Vandalism-1 warning.

TheDoDahMan (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

4. Ex-Van4

[[12]]

Issued Error-1 warning.

TheDoDahMan (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

. MOS:LEAD is the summary/introduction of the article. I cant find any text indicate a "safe zone" is always available, but texts indicated some human would "attempt to survive on their own" for such we cant determined it is a false or true edit. For edit of such, the lead section should of the "safe zone sentence" should be removed and leave a edit summary to state your reason. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

5. Ex-Van5

[[13]]

Issued Delete-1 warning

TheDoDahMan (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

. - see Becky Bell.

TheDoDahMan Good day. See above the first assignment. Ping me here when you are done and ready for review. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan Pls provide "hist diff" - see Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide (click 2 diff version (blue button) and provide the URL). Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan. Well done. Next time, ping me here when you have done the exercises and want me to review it. Also posts questions about the exerices here as well. For other questions, post them on the talk page. If you have any questions for assigment 1 then let me know here, if not and you are ready to move to next assignment, then let me know. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Good Morning! I think I am ready for the next part.TheDoDahMan (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan Good morning/afternoon. See your next assignment below. Btw, pls make sure you know how to link "hist diff" which I have explained at the talk page. Use your sandbox to test them out. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I am ready for Part3TheDoDahMan (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2019 (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: Warnings remind users that they are being observed so that they will be less likely to commit vandalism in the future.

We warn editor is to inform them that their edits are nonconstructive or inappropriate under Wikipedia policy, and most importantly the purpose is to "educate" the editor what is constructive editing, especially those new to Wikipedia and to "deter" them of such actions with stronger warnings leads up to a block. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: A 4im warning is appropriate when the user has received the first 4 warnings and it is obvious that they are determined not to stop.

. Good. It is used for cease and desists widespread vandalism, especially for those cases the that is egregious in a short time frame. For those that less egregious, lower warning level should be used. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: All welcome and warning messages MUST be substituted. Substitution is accomplished by the following {{subst:foo}} where foo is the name of the welcome/warning template.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Notify an administrator, so they can be blocked.

. When a user vandalizes after receiving a level 4 or level 4im warning, We should report and notify the WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism / WP:AIV. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

(5) Please give examples and please do the substitution (using {{Tlsubst|''name of template''}}) of three different warnings of different level (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:

{{subst:uw-vandalism1}}TheDoDahMan (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Yields: Hello, I'm TheDoDahMan. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks.TheDoDahMan (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Used for first infraction that is not a test edit.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Answer ii:

{{subst:uw-delete2}}TheDoDahMan (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Yields: Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.TheDoDahMan (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Used for 2nd incidence of deletion without reason.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Answer iii:

{{subst:uw-image3}}TheDoDahMan (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Yields: Please stop adding inappropriate images to Wikipedia. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. TheDoDahMan (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Used for 3rd incidence of uploading inappropriate images.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan, Good morning. Please read the question #5 again. Kindly let me know when you have done with the assignment and want me to review it. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I have re-read the question and I have re-read WP:RecentChangesPatrolling and other than forgetting to append my signature, I can't see what's wrong with it. I'm afraid you'll have to provide an example or clarification.

08:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan, My apologies. I forget to edit the question #5 on your subpage. "three different warnings of different level. was missing out. Once again my apologies.Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm on it.TheDoDahMan (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. I think its ready for evaluation.TheDoDahMan (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan, See the review above and if you have any questions, please let me know or f you are ready for next assignment. Once again, appologies for the missing texts on the Q#5. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. Ready for the next part. What's wrong with #4? I answered it at least partially correctly, I think.TheDoDahMan (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan You could report to an admin but no all admin is online during the time of the reporting and some admin dont work on vandalism work but help in other area such as other "notice boards" incident cases. the right venue is WP:AIV. See below your next assignment. Note, pls also provide WP:AIV hist diff if you reported the edit. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Will do. I haven't needed to report anyone yet, they generally stop after the 2nd warning.TheDoDahMan (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan You might want to download STiki; however, if the nature of the warnings are not found in STiki, then use Twinkle to warn the editor. With STiki, you will find more vandalism edits and you would have a chance to do WP:AIV report. Pls only revert and warn blatantly edits only. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan, Just noticed that STiki needs 1000 article edits and you have 544 at the moment. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:51, 30 May 2019 (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.

STiki

STiki is an application that you download to your computer, and it provides you with diffs which either it or User:ClueBot NG have scored on their possibility of being uncontructive, and you are given the option to revert it as vandalism, revert it assuming good faith, mark it as innocent, or abstain from making a judgment on the diff. In order to use STiki, you need one of the following: (1) the rollback permission, (2) at least 1000 article edits (in the article namespace, not talk/user pages), or (3) special permission via Wikipedia talk:STiki.

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.

Assignment

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 - If you report to AIV please include the diff	CASS' Comment
Example	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
1	Ex1	(default+undid vandalism) Issued {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	Y. There was {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} message prior yours see here, thus {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} should be used. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
2	Ex2	(default+undid vandalism) Issued {{subst:uw-vandalism3}}	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
3	Ex3	(default+undid vandalism) Issued {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}	Y. There were two level 3 & 4 warning prior yours but you placed yours as lvl 1 - [see here You could report the user to AIV. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
4	Ex4	(default+undid vandalism-joke) Issued {{subst:uw-joke1}}	Y Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
5	Ex5	(default+undid vandalism) Issued {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
6	Ex6	(default+undid unsourced blp content) Issued {{subst:uw-biog1}}	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk)
7	Ex7	(default+undid possible edit test) Issued {{subst:uw-test1}}	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk)
8	Ex8	(default+undid promo vandalism) Issued {{subst:uw-advert1}}	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk)
9	Ex9	(default+undid promo vandalism) Issued {{subst:uw-advert1}}	Y Well sported. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
10	Ex10	(default+undid possible edit test) Issued {{subst:uw-test1}}	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk)
11	Ex11	(default+undid possible edit test) Issued {{subst:uw-test1}}	N. User had more than 20+ edits and have been warned half a dozen times. It is a good faith edits but it is not a test edit.
12	Ex12	(default+undid deletion without cause) Issued {{subst:uw-tdel1}}	N Removing maintenance tag with resolve the issue prior removing the tags we would place disrup1, or simply revert without warning but send a personal message as is not a blatant vandalism, do stop on 3 revert or you will get blocked. If the user remove WP:COPYVIO or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) tag then it is a vandalism act. (we will cover these topics on other assignments). CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
13	Ex13[14]	Reported User 176.126.224.58 to AIV[15]	Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
14	Ex14	(undid serial vandalism) Issued {{subst:uw-biog2}}	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk)
15	Ex15	Reported user 82.132.239.45 to AIV - [16]	Y. Note I have change hist diff for AIV (need the hist diff from AIV history page)

TheDoDahMan Just a note, you dont need to be the one to warm the editor from level 1 to 4 and then report to AIV, if other vandal fighters have warned the editor Lvl 4 and the editor make another vandalized edit, you could report the editor to WP:AIV. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

CASSIOPEIA Hello. I have finished the table with the exception of the last AIV report. I don't have high hopes for another report within a reasonable time using this method. Someone always beats me to the mark. Any suggestions? How do you determine the number of article edits? I know I must be close to 1000 by now, but I can only display my contributions, I don't know how you count them. BTW I hope you had a pleasant trip. Don't rush to reply to this because I will be offline most of today. I want a break. Your colleagues (Sam Sailor, INeedSupport) kept me honest while you were away...TheDoDahMan (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan Good day. First all of thank you @Sam Sailor and INeedSupport: for informing TheDoDahMan of his incorrect identified vandalism edits, and thank you TheDoDahMan for apologizing the to involved editors. Sam Sailor has been very kind in landing a helping hand as he has taught me what is CSDA7 when started my NPP review work

Thanks again. Btw they are not my colleague, we are all volunteers who help in Wikipedia project just like you

. Btw for Lindsay Czarniak, as per our previous conversation, as long as a person holds either England, North Ireland, Welsh or Scotland citizenship they are considered British irregardless of their races or if they are mixed blood.

(1) Finding vandalized edits/reporting to AIV - First, warning an editor does not confine only to egregious vandalism edits. Those who vandalize in egregious manner would receive higher warning level such as lvl 3 or 4 which means we dont need to start the warning at lvl 1. For other not egregious vandalized edit (even only one with vandalized edit), we start which lvl 1/2 (use your judgement - we usually place lvl 1 for new or editor and the nature of the vandalize edit is not so serious. When you place the warning message on the vandalized editor's talk page, check and see if the IP is belong to a school/institute, if so, this means many editors use one IP to edit Wikipedia. Users in a school in particularly, would repeat more vandalism edits, so (a) repeatedly check their contribution log and (b) check the pages which they have vandalized recently. (c) stay about at 1-1.5 hrs doing vandalism work as most vandalized editors would repeat their actions within the time span. (d) if you see warning 4 (irregardless who placed the warning message) on the talk page of a vandalized editor and they are still online, then check their contribution log repeatedly for they might make another vandalized edit. (e) You could find a lot more vandalized edits on (US Eastern to Pacific Time Zone) Friday/Saturday night to early morning and Sunday when most people are off work/not in school. (f) check on sport events / players / fighters' pages (boxing, mma (UFC)) especially during (advertising spamming) and just after the match/game/bout (i) the result is somewhat controversy and (ii) a fighter got beat via a devastated knockout. (g) breaking news especially on celebrity pages. With the above suggestions, I believe you could find another report an AIV. For those who beat you to it, it is because they are more experience in vandal fighting and their use Huggle. (When you have user right to use Huggle, then you will find vandalized edit easier and faster as it would show how many warnings an editor has received as well as their recent edits).

(2) THIS is your edits made in Wikipedia (Bookmark the URL in your computer). Under the second section "Namespace Totals", you could find "Main" - that is the "articles in Wikipedia main space", as of this moment of my writing it states 1,078 edits and it comprised of 38.6% of your total edit counts.

I will check on your assignment 3 later after I have a rest from my transit. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Eh, thanks. I just wanted to let the user know that. INeedSupport ^:3 21:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan Morning.

For Answer 2 - If you see a block message is given to the editor - Here stating the same time and date as per your revert, this meant the user has already been blocked by admin which the admin action was performed before you. (If you use Huggle, it will mark the user in red dot when the user has been reported to AIV (might or might not been blocked yet, so if you revert or revert and send warning message, Huggle will only revert the edit but no more messages are being sent to the editor talk page since the editor has been reported). When a editor is blocked, the involved editor can not edit Wikipedia during the block period but the editor can view/read Wikipedia pages. Sometimes, the admin would block an editor even the warning level has not passed level 4 or the editor has not yet been reported - cases as such is usually the edits the involved editor made are very bad vandalism. For us the vandal fighters, we will stick to the vandalism guidelines when we performance the tasks.

For Answer 13 - Pls report to WP:AIV and provide the Hist diff on "your comment section".

Please find vandalism edits which you would report to AIV on Question 15. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Would you report this [[17]] user?TheDoDahMan (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan now is lvl 3, if editor continues in such fashion, then report after lvl4. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I have a few candidates but none of them have re-offended:

[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
Please have a look and see if they should be reported. Thanks in advance.TheDoDahMan (talk) 09: 56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan If any of the above reach pass lvl4 (the 5th vandalism edit) then you can report it to AIV. Btw if you provide url then the link is just 1 bracket on the left and 1 on the right of the URL (not double brackets). Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan have a look at

Rudyard Kipling - user 62.7.64.210.
Magic 8-Ball user 85.92.181.66
Roddy Ricch user 87.127.214.18

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan Need report to AIV "hist diff" for Q13 & Q15 as well as article "revert hist diff" Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I think I have everything although I don't understand the difference between "hist diff" and "revert hist diff".TheDoDahMan (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan Example Q 15 - This is article hist diff Ex15, and this is the "AVI report hist diff" - [23]. For Q 13, you provided article hist diff but not the AIV report hist diff which is needed. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I think I have what you need. Let me know.TheDoDahMan (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan you provided 2 article hist diff, I need only one - the editor which you reverted the edit and reported to AIV. The AIV hist diff does not show you have reported any editor. If the last revert is a few days ago, I am not sure the admin will make the block. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I have fixed it.TheDoDahMan (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

{{u|TheDoDahMan} rework Q13 as it was an old vandalized edits - admin removed it see - [24] CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Thanks for the freebie! I fixed up #13, it should be OK.TheDoDahMan (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan Most CUVA participants finds this assignment a little hard, and you will find it a lot more easier as you are more experience. Do continue to report to AIV if you find any, so you may familiar with vandalism reporting. Do you have any more questions of the assignment or you are ready to move on to next assignment?

CASSIOPEIA I am ready when you are.TheDoDahMan (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan See below assignment 4. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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:").

TheDoDahMan Hi, There is no exercises for assignment 4. Once you have done reading them, let me know and I will post assignment 5 for you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Hi. I have finished my SPI report and the reading of the above material. I am ready for Assignment #5.TheDoDahMan (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan Hi, See below. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I have finished the questions and am ready for the next part.TheDoDahMan (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users

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 vandalise your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. Please read WP:DENY.

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Ans:We deny recognition so that we do not feed their egos. Frequently they are disturbed individuals that get a kick out of being recognised. Denying recognition removes the purpose from the (attention-seeking) vandalism behaviour.TheDoDahMan (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure they are disturbed individuals

, but denying them the recognition is to refuse what they exactly want / what motivates them. We avoid giving attention to vandals and focus solely on dealing with their edits without involve emotionally. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?

Ans:In my brief experience I have found that legitimate users may be upset, but are still restrained in their behaviour. Trolls/vandals on the other hand, usually threaten violence or spew profanities or send pages of diatribes, sometimes all of the above. I have received at least 4 pieces of hate mail so far. It usually gets deleted by an admin but I just ignore the ones I do see.TheDoDahMan (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

. Trolls do place rude comments and use abusive language but we do also see good faith users get angry or frustrated at vandal fighters. This happens especially when we revert one of their good faith edits and the good faith users might leave unpleasant and vitriolic comments on our talk pages. We differentiate the good faith users over trolls by looking into the "user subtle intention" (we go back to assignment 1 here) - the troll want to upset you / make you annoyed and the good faith user is annoyed at you / upset with you. We examine the edit and if it is blatant vandalism especially with abusive language or degrading comments, then they are trolling you and do not employ tic for tac strategic engagement when dueling with a troll but dealing with their edits in a more-or-less mechanical manner. If the edit in question is not considered a vandalism or in doubt then do assume good faith and give them respect and attention for a civil discussion where most editors would reciprocate the same. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: I am ready for part 6 now.TheDoDahMan (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan Hi, You meant you have done with the exercise and want a review? CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, yes I am ready for review. BTW my sockpuppet report was deleted (reason:"You can't file a report like this" Given by Bbb23). Could you please look into it and find out what is wrong, I believe the evidence is overwhelming...TheDoDahMan (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi TheDoDahMan

(1) Vandalism - We, the vandal fighters, do receive unpleasant, rude and even down right disgusting comments from troll or vandalized editors. If editor leaving vandalism edit on your talk page (we will cover personal threat on later assignment), you could revert and warn them; however we always need to maintain a cool head and do not engagement by attacking the troll or vandalized editor. If you find yourself really annoyed/angry/mad of what you have read, and could not keep your cool then take a break, go and make a cup of coffee, go out for a run, dance along to the happy rhythm of the merengue music or just take the day off and not working on vandalism work.

(2) Sockpuppet report - the list is a little too long and misfiled - see the comment made by admin Bbb23. Wait and see if any check user clerk would pick up the request. I personally find that for us who engage in deep investigate of certain editor behavior by digging through all the edits/logs and present our case, it might something backfire as all the long analysis, links, explanations would just tired most editors involved as it takes effort to read the links and follow through the case. If the report is closed and no user check clerk picks up the request and if you insist, then refill it again (fill it correctly this time) and shorten the list and explanation and see if any check user admin would pick up the request. My previous filling at WP:SPI were checked out and sock puppets were banned.

(3) Assignment - See comments above and if you have any question on assignment 5 above, please place the questions here. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion

Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only an administrator can protect or delete pages; however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion or request protection. If you have Twinkle installed, you can use the Twinkle menu to request page protection or speedy deletion (the RPP or CSD options).

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

Ans: A page should be semi-protected when it is subject to a large amount of vandalism by many users (IPs in particular), because it would be a monumental task to warn and block them. As well it should be considered if the page is high profile or a BLP. The quality of the article should also be taken into account, because high quality articles attract more vandalism.

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?

Ans: This level of protection is for pages that suffer a large amount of vandalism, BLP violations or copyright violations.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Ans: Almost never. This protection is reserved mainly for pages like the main page, but can be for any page that has consistent amounts of high vandalism or edit warring.

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

Ans: This is used for poor quality articles that are repeatedly created. This re-creation of articles is known as "salting".

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

Ans: Again, almost never. This type of protection prevents unconfirmed users from editing their own talk pages (say to appeal a block or other sanction), so it is only used for the most severe vandalism and then only for a limited period.

Correctly request the protection of one page pending, and one (semi or full); post the diff of the article and your request (from WP:RPP) below.

(1) Ans:

(2) Ans:

Stephane Graff

Stephane Graff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High level of vandalism (BLP vio), mainly by various IPs. Sock puppet investigation initiated. Appears to be IP hopping. TheDoDahMan (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Diff

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should two pages be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?

(1) Ans: If a page is complete vandalism or graffiti or is threatening/harassing in nature.

(2) Ans: If a page is definitely promotional/advertising. In one case I encountered, a user had put their CV on Wikipedia!

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

(1) Ans: Tagged with {{Db-person}} because subject did not meet notability requirements. Del1

(2) Ans: Tagged with {{Db-promo}} because of reference link and with {{DB-nocontent}} for obvious reasons. Del2

TheDoDahMan See assignment 6 above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi CASSIOPEIA. Well it has been several days and I can't come up with the missing examples, I should be able to find a page that needs protection, but I can't find anything worthy of deletion so far. I am open to suggestions at this point. Nothing remarkable to report, other than I found another sockpuppet. Perhaps we can continue if the next part is not too dependent on this part? Cheers!TheDoDahMan (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan, Please visit New Pages Feed - (1) WP:Article for Creation (2) New page. You would find WP:COPYVIO, WP:PROMOTION and etc here. Use THIS TOOL to check copyvio. Only tag copyvio if a substantial of the content are copyvio. Need hist diff reports so I could find them. Are you going to report the sock? Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, thanks for the advice! I am not going to report the sock for now, because the admin who handed out the blocks was aware that it was a sock, so I don't think its necessary at this time.TheDoDahMan (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan, By the way pls do not tag any "New page" articles for the first few hours after they have created the page as the editors might still working on the articles. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Usernames

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. There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed:

Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, usernames that impersonate other people, or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.
Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.

Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particluar attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.

Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).

DJohnson

Thought: Could be referring to part of the male anatomy, but is most likely just the last name of the user.

Action and why: No action. Not misleading, promotional, offensive or disruptive.

LMedicalCentre

Thought: Could be promotional in nature.

Action and why: Do a Google search of the name and see what comes up. If promotional, warn user.

Fuqudik

Thought: Obviously means "fuck you, dick".

Action and why: Warn and report user due to offensive name.

ColesStaff

Thought:Could be misleading seeming to be someone on the staff of Coles.

Action and why:Warn user due to misleading name.

~~~~

Thought: This username cannot be used for technical reasons.

Action and why: Warn user that name is used for signatures on Wikipedia.

172.295.64.27

Thought: Is misleading, because it appears to be an IP address.

Action and why:Warn user because IPs are not permitted as usernames.

Bieberisgay

Thought: Violates BLP and is disruptive.

Action and why: Warn and report user for disruptive username that violates BLP of Justin Bieber.

TheDoDahMan See assignment 7. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

TheDoDahMan Good day. Just wonder are you ready for Assignment 6 and 7 to be reviewed? CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)