This is the CVUA page for DannyS712.

Initial Survey

Important Note: This survey is intended to be taken without any use of onwiki links or guidelines/policies. Only use your current knowledge. I want to see how much you know; I'm not testing you. Please answer honestly and to the best of your ability so I can best accustom the rest of the CVUA course to your strengths.

• How confident do you feel about anti-vandalism?
  • A: On a scale of 1-10, I am a 7 (with 10 being the most)
• What is a good faith edit?
  • A: An edit intended to help the WP project, rather than intentionally vandalize it
• What is vandalism?
  • A: The (intentional) corruption of a WP article/outline/etc (changing names to "fuck", deleting/blanking sections, etc)
• How could one distinguish between good faith and vandalism?
  • A: A good faith edit is any edit that does not fall under the category of vandalism. When in doubt, assume good faith
• When should you revert an edit?
  • A: When it is a clear example of vandalism, or other blatant violation of policy, you should immediately revert. If in doubt, discuss the issue on the talk page (you can revert before hand, if you feel that it is a vandalism edit, o otherwise very problematic)
• What is sockpuppetry?
  • A: Using multiple accounts impermissibly (it is okay to do so for public wifi, positions at the Foundation, testing, bots, and a few other reasons)
• What should you do if you encounter a sockpuppet?
  • A: Report it to SPI (sock puppet investigations) (or a check user directly?)
• If you notice an account is vandalizing on multiple wikis, what do you do?
  • A: Report it to bureaucrats (on meta?)
• What is the difference between how you should treat edits from an IP editor and from a registered user?
  • A: An IP also is assumed to be good faith, but without a track record of edits, the judgement of whether an edit should be reverted has a (slightly) lower threashold
• What is ORES?
  • A:
• If you see a threat of harm, what do you do?
  • A: Revert it, report it to ANI
• If you see a copyright violation, what do you do?
  • A: Tag as potential copyright violation, unless very clearly violation, in which case revert and warn the user
• If you see personal details or doxxing, what do you do?
  • A: Revert and report to ANI
• If you see personal attacks on a BLP, what do you do?
  • A: revert and warn user
• If you see grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive content, what do you do?
  • A: revert and warn user
• What is metawiki?
  • A: the core website of the foundation's different projects
• What is mediawiki?
  • A: The language used to "code" articles, templates, categories, etc
• What is the Wikimedia Commons?
  • A: A media repository, all of which must be free for public use (not fair use)
• What copyright is text on Wikipedia licensed under?
  • A: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (from the bottom of this page)
• What can rollbackers do?
  • A: Revert successive edits by the same or different users/IPs
• What are a few of the more important things admins can do?
  • A: block, ban, (un)protect a page, edit fully protected pages
• What is a steward, and what do they do?
  • A: Someone who serves throughout the Foundation's projects as provide technical capabilities (such as the removal of the "beaurocrat" right, which bureaucrats themselves cannot do)
• If you have questions about anything, where can you go for help?
  • A: The help desk, tree house, or google (include the term wikipedia, which usually finds the relevant page)
• Is this survey too long?
  • A: a bit

Phase I

Part I

• Find 3 edits that are vandalism, and explain why they are so.
  • 1: dif blanking of an article (also, unverifiable opinion)

Good. Vermont ( talk) 19:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• • 2: dif breaks citation, no purpose but to harm the article

Good. Vermont ( talk) 19:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• • 3: dif completely removes contentent of page that is notable

Good. Vermont ( talk) 19:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Find 3 edits that are good faith but disruptive, and explain why they are so.
  • 1. dif redirects to a relevant page, but no consessus was reached in discussions on the talk page, and the only problem was potential lack of notability, which was not established (I didn't read through all of the references)

Yes, although it isn't really that disruptive. It's more of a content dispute than good faith vandalism. Vermont ( talk) 19:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• • 2. dif adds POV content, but is relevant (could be considered vandalism)

This is blatant vandalism; definitely not good faith. Vermont ( talk) 19:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• • 3. dif adds POV content, unreferenced claim, (I have reverted this with TW AGF)

Possible vandalism, possible good faith. Therefore, AGF. Good. Vermont ( talk) 19:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

DannyS712, you can find these edits in Special:RecentChanges. I started out patrolling there, and as you don't have Rollback yet, it's a good place to begin. Vermont ( talk) 19:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Vermont:  Done -- DannyS712 ( talk) 19:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Part II

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

Why do we warn users?

To remind them of WP's mission, and suggest that they contribute to it rather than hinder it.

Basically right. Vermont ( talk) 09:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

Blatant abuse of WP, such as posting the personal information of others

Personal information would likely be a 4im (or immediate report to AIV) and an email to oversight. Vermont ( talk) 09:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Yes, you should, and you do so by adding "subst:" before the template name (but inside of the curly brackets)

Yep. Vermont ( talk) 09:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Report them to administrations (via AIV)

Exactly. You can do that using Twinkle, in the "TW" tab on a user's page or talk page, click ARV. Vermont ( talk) 09:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Please give examples of three different warnings (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.

• Advertising in mainspace ({{ uw-advert1}}) for obvious promotion of irrelevant companies/businesses in mainspace. While articles about companies are allowed, they should be strictly NPOV.
• Removal of relevant content without consensus as a form of censorship ({{ uw-notcensored1}}). Wikipedia is intentionally not censored, even if this results in the inclusion of inappropriate images or other material that is distasteful.
• Removal of XFD notices ({{ uw-afd1}}, {{ uw-cfd1}}, etc) without the discussion itself being closed. Doing so deprives readers and editors of the ability to comment on the request for deletion.

Good. Vermont ( talk) 09:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Make sure you keep in mind that some edits that seem like vandalism can be test edits. This happens when a new user is experimenting and makes accidental unconstructive edits. Generally, these should be treated with good faith, especially if it is their first time, and warned gently. The following templates are used for test edits: {{ subst:uw-test1}}, {{ subst:uw-test2}} and {{ subst:uw-test3}}.

I just wanted to make sure you know about Special:RecentChanges, if you use the diff link in a different window or tab you can check a number of revisions much more easily. If you enable Hovercards in the Hover section of your preferences, you can view the diff by just hovering over it. Alternately, you can press control-F or command-F and search for "tag:". some edits get tagged for possible vandalism or section blanking.

Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Please include at least two test edits and at least two appropriate reports to AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below

Part III

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 (I am not an admin); 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). If you want to report manually, either place a CSD tag on the page, or report at WP:RFPP.

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

When there is a history of vandalism by IPs and recently-created accounts.

Yes, that is the main use of it; when many IP's/new accounts are vandalizing in short succession, and a block won't help. Vermont ( talk) 00:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Note: there is only 1 level of pending changes protection now, as a result of [ RFC]. When there is a history of vandalism, but also of IPs making useful contributions.

Good job finding the RfC. Good answer, as well. Vermont ( talk) 00:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

If semi-protection and extended-protection fail to stop repeated vandalism by multiple parties, or to enforce an ARBCOM decision.

Good. I've also seen it used in a few cases when established users are edit warring, and an admin hopes to calm it down by fully protecting rather than blocking. Vermont ( talk) 00:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

When it has been deleted, recreated, deleted, etc and nothing has changed regarding whether the article should be kept.

Good. This commonly happens when entities continually try to make pages for non-notable subjects, and have been repeatedly deleted and recreated. Vermont ( talk) 00:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

When a talk page is being abused in non-encyclopedia ways, such as intimidation, posting of personal information, etc (either through normal editing or the creation of an edit request for a extended or fully protected page).

Posting of PII requires oversight and blocking, although in terms of recent incidents (like the refdesk vandal), semi-protection has been used. Otherwise good. Vermont ( talk) 00:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Correctly request the protection of one page; post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

1 2 3 - all protected

Good. Vermont ( talk) 00:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted? (very briefly, no need to go through the criteria.)

When the deletion should be uncontroversial.

Perfect response. In short, CSD is for uncontroversial deletions that would not be contested. Vermont ( talk) 00:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

See User:DannyS712/CSD log

Good. Vermont ( talk) 00:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Vermont:  Done -- DannyS712 ( talk) 06:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

DannyS712, I'm quite impressed by your edits so far. Below I'm going to add your next assignment.

Assessment

(from ThePlatypusofDoom's training guide)

Here's a test so I can measure your progress in this area. The following scenarios each have multiple questions that are based on WP: VANDAL, WP:3RR, WP: REVERT, WP: BLOCK, WP: GAIV, WP: WARN, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, WP:911, WP:OS, WP:REVDEL and WP:UN. Good Luck!

Scenario 1

You encounter an IP disrupting the article on Homosexuality. They are adding extremely nasty homophobic slurs, and death threats.

• Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?

Vandalism: there is no good faith reason to be adding this, and WP:AGF doesn't extend to threats of harm.

Y

• Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

Among others, WP:VAN and the rules behind WP:URGENT

Y

• Should you automatically report this, or should you give this person a warning? Why?

Yes, no warning should be given given the extreme level of severity of the IP's actions

Y

• In what place(s) would you report this? Why? Is revision deletion or oversight needed? Why?

Both to an administrator (in a non-public manner) and to the WMF at WP:URGENT. Revdel is needed to hide the death threats, but WP:OS is not needed (though I don't think it would be an issue to use that instead). These are needed to hide the threat and ensure that it was not serious/is dealt with.

Y. Immediately email emergency@wikimedia.org, then contact an administrator.

Scenario 2

You see a new account called "Hi999" that has added random letters to one article.

• Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?

Yes, as this cannot be defended as good faith (when in doubt, AGF, but there is no doubt)

Y although it could be a test edit, regardless it is disruptive

• What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?

{{ uw-disruptive1}}

Y

• Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?

Rollback (blue)

Y you could use blue if you were intending to write a comment, or red if you weren't.

• The user now has a level 3 warning on their talk page. They make a vandal edit, would it be appropriate to report this user to AIV? Why or why not?

No, a level 4 warning should be added first

Y Good, although remember it depends on the vandal edit. There is not necessarily a requirement to hit all 4 levels, although most admins will not block until all 4 levels of warnings are given.

• If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?

No, the first block should not be indef. A 24-hour block should be enough, and if this doesn't stop their vandalism the length of subsequent blocks should increase, eventually reaching indef.

Y Judging from the username, "Hi999", an administrator may perceive it to be a vandalism-only account, and may indefinitely block the user. Although, it is always best to AGF.

• Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{ IPvandal}} or {{ vandal}}?

{{ vandal}}

Y

• What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?

persistent vandalism

Y

Scenario 3

• A user is adding unsourced comments to a BLP, but you're pretty sure that this person is acting in good faith. Do you revert?

Yes

Y

• What would be an appropriate template to use in this situation?

{{ uw-unsourced1}}

Y

• This user now has a lvl 4 warning on their talk page. They add the comment again. Do you report?

No. I would not, given my prior history (adding one of the warnings) and the good faith nature of the edits. But, someone else could.

Y It depends on the content of the comment. If it's unsourced and defamatory/contentious (thus in violation of BLP policy), they should be reported. Otherwise, the content should be removed and discussed on the article or user's talk page.

Scenario 4

You see a new account called "LaptopsInc" which has created a new page called "Laptops Inc" (which only contains the words "Laptops Inc" and a paragraph copied from www.laptopsinc.com). The user also added "www.laptopsinc.com" on the Laptop article. You research Laptops Inc on Google and find that is a small company.

• Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option (agf, neutral, vandalism) would you use?

Yes, with agf

Y

• If you do revert which warning template would you use?

{{ uw-advert1}}

Y or none at all, and just leave the uw-coi-username template.

• Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?

{{ Db-inc}}

Y

• Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?

Yes, I would use {{ Uw-coi-username}}

Y

• Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?

No, I would give them a chance to change their username first

N Send usernames in violation of the username policy to UAA, and they will be blocked until their username is changed (or, if the username is a notable person's name, verified).

Scenario 5

You come across an account named "JohnIsAFag". You find that it's created the page "John Simmonds", which reads "John Simmonds is a guy born in 1991. He is still alive today, unfortunately, because he is an idiot. ahsjjdshhsd".

• Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s)? If so, which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?

Yes, {{ Db-personal attack}}

Y

• Would you report this user to UAA? If so, What part of the username policy does the username violate?

Yes, WP:ATTACKNAME

Y, and you may want to consider reporting the username at meta:SRG for lock/hiding.

• The user puts the same insults in a different page 4 times, you have reverted 3 times already. Would another revert be a violation of WP:3RR?

No, see WP:3RRBLP

Y

Results

@ Vermont:  Done -- DannyS712 ( talk) 20:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Your score: ✓ Pass 20.5/22 (93%)

I'll add another assignment tomorrow or the day after. For now, you can work on anti-vandalism in RecentChanges, and I'll look over your edits for the next 24 hours. Vermont ( talk) 21:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Vermont: any update? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 18:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I've been looking over your edits, and I think you're ready to apply for Rollback. Apply at WP:PERM, and show me a diff of you applying. Vermont ( talk) 18:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Vermont:  Done here -- DannyS712 ( talk) 22:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@ DannyS712: Granted. -- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Phase 2

Part 1

Check out Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools and install any tools you might want to use. List below any tools you download/install. I see you've been using STiki quite a bit; perhaps you could try Huggle. Vermont ( talk) 22:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Vermont:

I have been using STiki and Twinkle. I'd like to avoid any new major tools for now (like Huggle) until I'm more confident in my use of rollback, but I'll look for any other small scripts to add. I've also been using a rollback confirmation script, so that I avoid as many mistakes as possible. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 00:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Vermont:

I have installed Huggle and am trying to figure it out now. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 06:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Part 2

Once you're situated with the tools you want, we'll begin a 1 week monitoring period. Vermont ( talk) 14:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

DannyS712: Ready to begin the monitoring period? Vermont ( talk) 00:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Vermont: I'm really busy IRL at the moment. Can we do this later? Sorry. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 00:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course. Vermont ( talk) 00:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@ DannyS712: I've been watching your edits recently, and believe you are ready for the final assessment. Please ping me when you're ready to take it. Vermont ( talk) 02:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)