Hello Leoprix, 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.
- 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.
- Curriculum
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.
- Communication
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) 21:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The start
editGadgets
editTwinkle
editTwinkle 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
editRedwarn 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
editHuggle 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.
- For your reference only - I see that you've already installed RW, not sure about Twinkle.
Finding the vandals
editThere 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.
Good faith and vandalism
editWhen 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
- I would assume good faith for edits contrary to the MOS, addition of unsourced (not defamatory) content and edits which don't adhere to NPOV, since the editor is likely unaware of those Wikipedia policies and aren't damaging Wikipedia deliberately. For replacing the name of a BLP with "Wikipedia is stupid" and adding swear words to an article, I would not, since it is vandalism.
Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
- Vandalism is deliberately editing an article to damage it, whereas a good faith edit is one where the editor is not trying to harm the article or Wikipedia as a whole. To tell them apart, a good faith edit either improves the article or it's clear the editor doesn't understand Wikipedia policies, whereas vandalism is typically obvious.
- Definitions correct, other indicators to help may include usernames (vandal-like names are obvious), edit summaries (misleading?) and past contribution history (persistent disruptive edits?)
Please explain why it is important to not to WP:BITE newcomers whose edits may have been made in good faith
- It's important to be patient with new editors as we don't want to scare potential new contributors away from editing. Wikipedia's policies can be very overwhelming, so it's unreasonable to expect newcomers to perfectly understand every single one right from the start, and it's better for everybody if communications aren't hostile, but rather constructive.
- I certainly could have been scared off easily - editors who make edits in good faith may be driven off if others are overly harsh to them
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?
- If it's unclear then I should assume good faith.
- Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. These can be from your editing history or from your next recent changes/Abuse log patrol.
| Type | Diff | Trainer's comment |
|---|---|---|
| Good-faith edit | [1] | 
|
| Good-faith edit | [2] | I'd probably have assumed test edits |
| Good-faith edit | [3] | MOS vios not vandalism
|
| Vandalism | [4] | Looks like factual errors
|
| Vandalism | [5] | Typical vandalism
|
| Vandalism | [6] |
|
A note about Redwarn and Twinkle
edit
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 Leoprix and welcome to the CVUA! Please find the first section of the course above, it's on the policy Assume Good Faith. Remember that this course will go at your pace - there are no deadlines and you can edit in other areas before completing the tasks :-) Pahunkat (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- When you're finished or if you have any questions, ping me below. Pahunkat (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Pahunkat I've completed the section above Leoprix (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Leoprix, great answers! Everything is correct. I apologise for the delay in marking, off-wiki events meant that I had less time than anticipated and could not edit until now. I'm confident you understand this, so I'll add the next section below - once again, ping me when done/if you have any questions. Pahunkat (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Pahunkat I've completed the section above Leoprix (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Warning and reporting
editWhen 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.
- Please answer the following questions
- Why do we warn users?
- Warnings help the editor understand why their edit was reverted and expand on the edit summary. They also help administrators identify persistent vandals by seeing an editors warning history, and help other editors decide when to report them to AIV.
- When would a 4im (only) warning be appropriate?
- When there is excessive and persistent vandalism which the editor hasn't been warned for, and for very serious cases of vandalism.
- Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it? (Hint - read the link before answering!)
- Yes: {{subst:template}}
- What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalizes again?
- Report them to AIV.
- Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. For each revert/warning please fill in a line on the table below. Note that you must be the user that reverts the vandalism and warns the user. If you have trouble with the wiki markup, tell me and we'll get it sorted out.
| # | Diff of your revert, and warning if applicable. | Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff | Trainer's Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [7] [8] | Advertising (AGF) | I had a look, everything below this is fine with appropriate warnings
|
| 2 | [9] [10] | Vandalism |
|
| 3 | [11] [12] | Non-constructive |
|
| 4 | [13] [14] | Removal of a large section with no reason (AGF, likely by mistake) |
|
| 5 | [15] [16] | Vandalism |
|
| 6 | [17] [18] | Vandalism, escalate previous warning |
|
| 7 | [19] [20] | Likely edit test (AGF) |
|
| 8 | [21] [22] | Vandalism |
|
| 9 | [23] [24] | Removal of plot section with no reason (AGF, likely by mistake) |
|
| 10 | [25] [26] | Adding uncited content (replacing sourced content) and advertising (AGF) | I would probably have warned this for advertising though - from my perspective it looks like pure promotion rather than an attempt to add neutral content
|
Hi Leoprix, please see the above section on warning and reporting (to AIV). Thanks :-) Pahunkat (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Page protection
editProtecting 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.
Please read the protection policy.
- In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
- Semi-protection should be used when there is disruption or vandalism from non-autoconfirmed and IP editors.
- In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?
- Pending changes protection should be used similarly to semi-protection, but may be favoured when there is a lower edit rate on the target page, or if there are many constructive edits from non-autoconfirmed and IP editors.
- In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
- Full protection should be used if there is large scale edit warring, or if there is significant vandalism from extended-confirmed users. The latter circumstance is extremely rare
- In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
- Page salting should be used when a frequently deleted pages are repeatedly re-created.
- In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
- Talk pages can be semi-protected if there is severe vandalism or abuse. But not for too long
- Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request at WP:RPP below. (Note - it might take you a while to come across a circumstance where this is required - we can continue with the next section of the course before you do this, but when the need arises please post here and ping me).
- [27]
As always, ping me if you have any questions and once you're finished :-) Pahunkat (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Pahunkat, I've done the questions but not the last one. Is a diff from my edit history fine (since I've done it once before), or do I need to find a new one? Leoprix (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Leoprix, apologies for the delay - I haven't been able to get on to Wikipedia for some time due to a combination of personal issues and upcoming exams. Everything above was fine, and a previous diff from your history is also alright. In the meantime, please see the next section below. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
editPlease read WP:CSD. Twinkle can be used to tag pages for speedy deletion - use the 'CSD' part of the dropdown menu.
- In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?
- Speedy deletion should be used when there is no chance the deletion could be contested otherwise, for example: copyright violations, pages which are pure vandalism, and pages which solely advertise.
What do the letter prefixed to each criteria mean? In previous iterations I've mostly skipped this question, but we're not going to do much tagging so explaining the prefixes and all of the G-criteria will do
- G—General
- A—Articles
- R—Redirects
- F—Files
- C—Categories
- U—User pages
- P—Portals
- Tag two pages in any namespace for speedy deletion. It may take a while to find one, so I'd be willing to move on if you can't find any to tag. Post the page name below. Hint: You'll have a better chance of success at this task if you go through the abuse log to find pages which have tripped filters such as "possible self-promotion in userspace" and similar
- User:North Shore AutoRepair (notice)
- Draft:ZEVION HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED (notice)
Speedy deletion examples
editIn 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.
- Scenario 1
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.
- Request under G10 Attack page
- Scenario 2
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.
- Request under G11 Attack page
- Scenario 3
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.
- Request under A7 No credible claims of notability
- Scenario 4
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.)
- Create an AfD since this doesn't fall under any speedy deletion criteria, but its importance is not supported by any reliable sources.
- would likely be redirected at AfD
- Scenario 5
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?
- Request under G12, and this would not change regardless if it has "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom, unless it explicitly states it is in the public domain, or is under a compatible licence with the CC BY-SA Even then attribution has to be provided on tal page
- Scenario 6
A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.
- If it exists on another Wikipedia, then request under A2, otherwise use the template {{Not English}}
- Scenario 7
A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
- Request under A3
Question: Perhaps a better one to use in this circumstance
- G7
- G7
- Scenario 8
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?
- If this was in a user page, or a user sandbox, I would do nothing. If it was in draftspace, or in article space, then request under G1
Hey Pahunkat, I've added the diff for the page protection request in the section above, and I've also completed the current section. Also, good luck on your exams! :) Leoprix (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Revision Deletion and Oversight
editPlease 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.
- If you believe an edit needs to be revision deleted, how would you request that?
- By contacting an administrator in Category:Wikipedia_administrators_willing_to_handle_RevisionDelete_requests, or for copyright violations using {{Copyvio-revdel}}
- If you believe that it's so serious it needs oversight, how would you request that?
- By emailing oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org
Pahunkat, done. Leoprix (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Dealing with difficult users
editOccasionally, 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.
- Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?
- We deny trolls recognition to make their actions seem trivial, rather then fueling their desire for attention, or to give them the thrill of disrupting other editors' work.
Pahunkat, done. Leoprix (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Rollback
editIn 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.
- Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.
- Rollback can be used when there is clear vandalism, or to revert my own edits/edits in my userspace. It should not be used to revert edits which I simply disagree with or as a method of edit warring.
- Hopefully this will never happen, but it does occasionally. If you accidentally use rollback, what should you do?
- Revert the edit manually with a note in the edit summary stating that the rollback was unintentional.
- Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?
- No, since no option is provided to do so.
Please see above - thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Monitoring period
editCongrats, 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
Leoprix, this is the last bit before the final exam, after which you graduate from CVUA! Please ping me below when ready to begin. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm ready to start now Pahunkat. Leoprix (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll take edits from when you posted the last message into account. Pahunkat (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going through the edits, will get back to you once I've finished. Sorry for the wait. Pahunkat (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Leoprix, I went through your edits - everything was fine, I just thought I'd mention the following:
- Molly Rose Clothing could have been reported to UAA (but they were blocked anyways
- If you want, RW can be made faster by switching from undo to rollback in settings
- That's all from me, I'm happy to put the final task below if you're ready. Pahunkat (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll take edits from when you posted the last message into account. Pahunkat (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)