User:Girth Summit/CVUA/Vwilding

Hello Vwilding, 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 in your answers, 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.

The CVUA curriculum

There are several sections of the training course. In some of them, will be asking you to do perform practical exercises; in others, I will ask you to read certain policies and guidelines, and then ask you some questions about their content. To be clear, 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.

The start[edit]

Twinkle[edit]

I see you've already started using Twinkle to revert vandalism and warn users. There are other tools out there, which we may discuss later on, but Twinkle is what we will use for the majority of this course - it's enormously useful.

Good faith and vandalism[edit]

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.

Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart. GirthSummit _(blether) 14: 12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I would say that the difference between a good faith edit and vandalism is twofold; in the content of the edit itself, and the editor's intention in making the edit, which the content will reflect. Vandalism will often (but not always) be blatant, involving the addition of content that has no business being on a page like profanity, "follow me on XYZ social media network", or an editor adding theirs/someone else's name to a page. Lots of these will have no or a very standard edit summary, often just spam characters. More subtle vandalism would include modification of page tags, minor changes to facts (like changing dates in BLP articles), or be blatant vandalism to the page content with an edit summary like "Reverted vandalism" or a minor edit marked with "Fixed grammar" and a small byte change.

Good faith edits, on the other hand, would be where a user makes test edits - often people will add "hi" to a wiki page and nothing else, I distinguish this from the social media spam partially on its' content lacking malice, but also partly on edit history - adding unsourced but factually correct information into articles, or adding opinions into articles without a neutral point of view. So far, I've tried to distinguish between them by looking at the diff and the changes made, and also looking at the user's edit history to see if their edits are an accidental test (e.g. with blanking sections) as opposed to repetitive, deliberate page blanking. Whenever possible, we should assume good faith, unless the content of the edit is deliberately malicious or where a user has a history of edits which might otherwise be seen as forgivable mistakes. vwilding ^talk 17:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow, good answer - you've thought about this. Yes, ultimately the difference is the intent - vandalism is done with the intent of damaging the project. All you have available to make the judgement though is the editor's contributions, so the content obviously matters too. I'm glad you mentioned the edit summary as well - vandals often try to disguise malicious edits by giving them benign edit summaries - I always take a quick look at 'fix typo' edits, they're usually vandalism!

The point about good faith is also important. If we can't be sure that an edit is intentional damage, then we assume good faith and treat it differently. It doesn't mean we don't revert, but we don't use the word vandalism, and we give the editor a different template with more relevant content and links, depending on what was wrong with their edit. Note that when reverting anything that isn't obvious vandalism, you should always leave an edit summary explaining why you are removing it, and you are not protected by the WP:3RR exceptions for edit warring - there are other ways to deal with it, but knowing the difference helps you avoid getting drawn into content dispute edit wars when patrolling for vandalism. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three 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

Vandalism

@Girth Summit: Here are some recent examples from my edit history -

Examples of good faith

[1]

Agree, this looks like someone adding what they believe to be interesting information, but without sourcing and with the spelling mistake the good faith revert was appropriate.

[2]

As above - clearly unencyclopedic and unsourced, but not obvious vandalism.

[3]

Borderline, but you could probably stretch good faith to cover this - it's subjective opinion, but it is related to the topic of the article.

Examples of vandalism

[4]

[5]

[6]

vwilding ^talk 22:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, good work on the above, I agree with all your assessments. I'd make two additional comments about these.

When reverting a good faith edit, it helps to leave a brief edit summary explaining why you are reverting. You don't need to go into detail - just something like 'Unsourced' or 'Revert removal of sourced content' or similar.
In each case of vandalism above, you've gone straight to a Level 3 warning. While that is sometimes appropriate for egregious vandalism, some admins are unwilling to block vandals who haven't been through the Levels 1 - 4 before being reported to WP:AIV. We'll do more on this in the next section. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 07:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Warning and reporting[edit]

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?

I would say that we warn users to encourage them to stop making negative contributions, and taking into account your notice above about some admins refusing to block users without all 1-4 warnings, as a way of judging whether a user's actions have been egregious enough for a block. By starting at level 1, we assume good faith, gives them a calm warning and a welcome, which will be enough for some editors making disruptive edits. Further warnings, increasing in severity, are more likely to discourage users who are editing in good faith but still being disruptive.

Y Yes. First and foremost, we are literally informing the user that their editing is not acceptable, and we are giving them links to relevant pages that might help them, like the sandbox and our policies on vandalism. The escalated series of warnings also allow admins to see that the user has been informed of the problems with their editing multiple times, and they have shown no indication of stopping and need to be blocked. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

A 4im warning would be appropriate for users or IP users who engage in consistent, egregious disruptive editing which is obvious and deliberate.

Yes - if a user has vandalised multiple articles, or the same article multiple times, but nobody has given them a warning yet, then going straight to a 4im is appropriate. (Probably a good idea to briefly describe your rationale if you subsequently report them to AIV). It can also be appropriate for egregious cases of BLP violations (e.g. inserting unsourced accusations of criminal behaviour), or insertion of highly offensive racist/sexist/homophobic commentary into articles.

Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it? (Note - as a Twinkle user, you probably won't have done this manually. Read substitute to find out more).

Yes, templates on user pages should be substituted, so that any future changes won't modify a user's talk page. I would assume that this is because user talk pages act as an archive, so any future modifications to templates would change the message/warning they were given. Furthermore, some templates like uw-derogatory don't appear to be protected and could be vandalised. To substitute a template, one should {{subst:template_name}}.

You're exactly right - if you put a message on someone's talk page, you don't want the message to change because the template is edited at a later date. Any message you place using Twinkle is automatically substituted, so this isn't something you have to think about most of the time, but it's worth knowing about should you ever need to place a template manually.

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

(Using Twinkle, from their user, talk, or contribs page) submit a report at WP:AIV giving details of the user's actions, diffs as evidence, and let an administrator decide what action to take against the user.

vwilding ^talk 16:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, AIV is correct, and Twinkle is by far the easiest way to do it. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

OK - onto the next task - please ping me once you've filled up the table. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Also try to include at least two good faith 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 (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff	Trainer's Comment
1	[7]	No faith assumption, though from the content of the edit, likely attacking an individual the editor knows offline.	Agree that it was probably vandalism, someone making fun of their friend. Your warning was appropriate, and I see the IP has been blocked for three months now.
2	[8]	ClueBot beat me to one of thise user's other edits, so I checked their contribs and found this. Their username suggests they're trying to hide their vandalism	Well done - yes, always take a look at the contribs when you see unpleasant stuff like this, clean up whatever mess they've been making. That's the kind of thing I'd give a 4im warning for, and I see they've been blocked already. (I agree with you about the username - that's probably a policy violation in itself, and so you could have reported immediately to UAA - we'll do more about this in shortly in a future section).
3	[9]	AGF - not necessarily vandalism	Yes - random characters, first edit from that IP in almost a year - could feasibly be a test. I'd probably have given an 'Editing test' warning rather than a vandalism warning for this one, but no big deal.
4	[10]	Changing of names with an edit summary of "fixed typo" = deliberate vandalism	Yep - if they'd done that without an edit summary, I'd have AGFed and given a test edit warning; with the edit summary, it's obviously deliberate messing about.
5	[11]	Should've made this one good-faith and given a summary for disruptive editing	Hmm - I guess someone protesting about a WMF banner asking for donations? Vandalism is fine for this, I can't think of any way that this is intended to improve the article, or test their ability to edit.
6	[12]	I really need to stop automatically clicking the vandalism button - this is unsourced and should refer the user to WP:RS.	Agreed - that's probably a good faith attempt to add information, but as it's unsourced it needs to be removed. AGF revert, edit summary along the lines of 'Unsourced', level 1 warning for adding unsourced information (unless it's not their first time, in which case escalate as appropriate).
7	[13]	Deliberate and persistent name change, and with a history of vandalism, reported to AIV and user subsequently blocked for 1 month [14]	Yep, nice job.
8	[15]	No faith assumption - user previously added unsourced information without a warning (and is likely writing about themselves).	Yes, and correct warning notice.
9	[16]		Agree
10	[17]	The same article as above! Perhaps the user has switched to a logged-in account?	Possibly - disruptive anyway, so revert/warn appropriate.
11	[18]	Persistent vandalism, user was already given a level 4, so was reported to AIV	Yep, user has been blocked and the page has been protected (more on that later).
N/A	[19]	I see you beat me to it!	Yes, that was a strange one - user was making some silly comments in the article. I started out with a good faith test edit warning, but switched to vandalism as the continued. They seem to have stopped now.
12	[20]	I assumed good faith...	You were generous!
13	[21]	...but realistically, this is vandalism.	Yes. They were just being silly and messing about, nothing offensive, but it's disruptive nevertheless and could not possible be intended to improve the article, so it is vandalism.
14	[22]		I'd have probably given a test edit warning for that - I agree it's probably vandalism, but it could be someone just seeing whether they really can edit the page.
15	[23]	Blatant vandalism	Yes - clear case of vandalism.

@Girth Summit: - All done! :) vwilding ^talk 10:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Great - really good job on these, I agree with your assessments and you've warned appropriately, except in perhaps a couple of places where I might have given level 1 test rather than level 1 vandalism (it gives the user a link to their sandbox, so they can use that if they want to mess about).

By the way, just a couple of notes about diffs and pings.

If you forget to sign a post, any pings you typed in it won't be sent. Pings typed in previous posts are not sent when you re-sign, so I didn't get your last ping. If you forget to sign, you need to add another ping - you can use the 'hp' (hidden ping) option to do that, as I've been doing above, if you don't want the page to look too cluttered.
Regarding your diffs, they weren't working for me. I've never experimented with diff syntax, but I've always found the easiest way to insert them is as an external link - so, copy the URL, and paste it inside single square brackets. If you want text to be displayed with it, type it after a space (instead of a pipe). See the changed I made to the diffs above for reference.

Right, I think we're done here - you can clearly tell the difference between good faith editing and vandalism, and you are using Twinkle to warn people appropriately. I'll upload the next section shortly. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

Having reviewed your recent contributions, it's clear that you've got a pretty good understanding of what is and is not vandalism already, so I think this might be a good time to discuss Rollback.

The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced vandalism fighters 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 faster than the Twinkle rollback button, but more importantly, having rollback gives you access to downloadable counter-vandalism software like Huggle and WP:Stiki.

If you're interested, take a look at our rollback guideline at WP:Rollback and feel free to answer the questions below, then we can look at applying for the permission (you apply at WP:PERM, and I would add my recommendation to your application.) To be clear though, Rollback is not an essential part of this course, so if you're not interested, feel free to skip this section and we can just continue using Twinkle (which is still the tool I personally use more than any other in counter vandalism work). GirthSummit _(blether) 18:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointers on pings and the diff template above, I'm trying out hidden ping here and it seems much better for clutter (and reminds me that I need to sign things!). In terms of Rollback, I had previously applied [seen here] but have been told to wait a few weeks and re-apply then - I definitely think it'll be useful to learn about and hopefully reapply for later, and from what I've seen so far about Huggle, it looks to be a really helpful tool.

Hmm - I didn't get the ping that time, and I confess I'm not entirely sure why. The syntax of the hidden ping looks OK to me, it's possible that you need to apply your signature directly to the end of the block of text you've just added? I'll need to do some close reading of WP:PING to figure that one out.

OK, I took a look at your application for Rollback - since it was just a few days ago, I think it's probably best to wait a bit as Amory suggested. We'll continue with the course using Twinkle, and then make an application in a couple of weeks, to which I'll add my support.GirthSummit _(blether) 11:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.

Standard rollback should only be used against vandalism, on my own user pages, or against my own edits. However, if used with an extension (perhaps such as Huggle?) that allows for an appropriate edit summary, Rollback can be used like any other reversion tool.

Yes, that's correct - but remember, when you do get your Rollback license and start Huggling, you are still subject to the rollback rules - make sure to choose the right description in Huggle for why you are reverting, don't just use the default vandalism option unless it is unambiguous vandalism.GirthSummit _(blether) 11:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully this will never happen, but it does occasionally. If you accidentally use rollback, what should you do?

Undo the rollback, and give an edit summary showing the self-revert due to an accidental rollback. If you were to rollback a good faith edit accidentally (instead of a twinkle AGF rollback, say) you would leave a dummy edit explaining that rollback was accidentally used and why the edit was reverted, like for an unsourced but constructive edit.

Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?

No - rollback will leave a standard message stating that all of an editor's changes have been reverted (as it says on WP:Rollback, the message will be something like Reverted edits by User A to last version by User B).

Note that you can fiddle about with Rollback settings in preferences to make it leave an edit summary - but, to be honest, I'd just use Twinkle if I wanted to leave an edit summary. Apart from tools like Huggle/Twinkle, I only use rollback for mass reverting high-speed abuse from prolific vandals when I've already reported to AIV and am waiting for them to be blocked - otherwise, the Twinkle tools are fine.

vwilding ^talk 22:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, all good so far - I'll add the next section shortly. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

A thought about tools. While it is probably prudent to hold off on another rollback request for a couple of weeks, it's possible to get special permission to use Stiki without having rollback rights. Stiki is a highly useful tool - it's similar to Huggle in many respects, but it works on Cluebot's queue of historic questionable edits rather than working in real time. Rather than working on the front line, it helps mop up the stuff the Hugglers miss. I think you'd probably be a good candidate for that, so I'd be happy to request permission from the Stiki team if you're interested?

Either way, next section is below. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion[edit]

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[edit]

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

From reading the protection policy and the linked rough guide, I would say that pages should primarily be semi-protected when a majority of page edits by unregistered users are vandalism or otherwise disruptive (e.g. BLP violations), and where the vandalism is coming from a wide range of new user accounts / IP users. In general, a page should only be protected after instances of vandalism / content disputes, never as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has yet to occur.

Yes - if a page is getting a high volume of vandalism, and where just blocking an IP wouldn't fix the problem because it's coming from multiple IPs/accounts. This most often happens when a particular issue or person is prominent in the news for a couple of days, and their pages get an unusually high volume of traffic. It doesn't have to be a very high volume - if a page got perhaps eight or ten vandalistic edits from different accounts over the course of a couple of days, I'd apply for this kind of protection (it's really easy with Twinkle).

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

Pending changes protection should be applied on articles facing persistent vandalism, BLP violations, or copyright violations, and never in a genuine content dispute where unregistered users would be put at a disadvantage. Unlike semi-protection, it allows unregistered and new users to make edits to pages, however their changes will only be reflected in the page content for all users once they have been approved by a pending-changes reviewer.

Yes - this is generally for pages that get lower volumes of disruption, but it's persisent. The advantage is that it's less restrictive, but the drawback is that it creates work for reviewers.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Highly visible pages, like the main page or Wikipedia logo, will generally have full protection. Full protection should be applied as a temporary solution to an edit war, where editors can discuss changes on a page's talk page until a consensus is reached and an administrator makes the changes live.

Yes, it's primarily for stuff that would have effects across many pages if it was tinkered with, also to stop disruption at very high profile pages with edit wars going on between established accounts.

Hey, sorry I've been AWOL for the past few days, I've been revising and trying to be productive! I'd love to give STiki a try, recent changes patrolling can be a bit fast-paced, and I'd like to be able to make higher quality edits. vwilding ^talk 20:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries about the short hiatus - you can do this course at your own pace, there's no need for you to feel you need to act on tasks immediately.

With regard to the pressure of working with recent changes - one approach I sometimes take is to set the page to show 100 changes, with the 'Likely bad faith' filter applied, and then start reviewing them from the bottom up. Active hugglers catch most bad faith edits within a few seconds/minutes of the edit being made, but some always slip through the cracks - if you look at the older ones, you will likely find some vandalism that needs fixing, but there's less pressure because fewer people will be looking at them.

Using Stiki is a bit like doing that, except there's no limit to the length of the queue - if an edit is put onto Cluebot's queue, it will eventually be fed to a Stiki user for review. I'll make a request for Stiki now, and will ping you from the request. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Stiki[edit]

You'll probably have seen that Andrew West, the Stiki developer, has agreed to give you the Stiki permission this evening - once that's done, you should be able to download and install it using the instructions at WP:Stiki. I'll give you a few brief notes here on using it, but you should be sure to read through the information at WP:STiki.

Stiki is a diff browser - it works by serving up a series of diffs from a queue that have been flagged as potentially problematic. It can draw diffs from one of two queues - it has its own one, or it can use Cluebot's. In my experience, the Cluebot one has a higher accuracy rate, and so that's the one I'd recommend that you use.

When you log in, it will show you a diff - not the actual Wikipedia page, just the changes that were made. On the left, you have 4 options - you can do a vandalism revert, a Good Faith revert, you can pass, or you can mark as innocent.

Performing a vandalism revert will leave an edit summary along the lines of 'Revert change identified as vandalism', and will warn the user with a vandalism warning. The level is automatically assigned according to the number of warnings on the user's page this month; it will also automatically report to AIV if the are already on a level 4 warning.
A Good Faith revert will leave an edit summary along the lines of 'Good faith revert', and you then have to choose from a range of options about what message to leave on the user's talk page. Common ones would be 'test edit', 'unsourced content', that sort of thing. Be careful to choose appropriately.
Pass is what to do when you're not sure - it will put the diff back into the queue for someone else to look at. That is sometimes appropriate if you're not sure about a diff, for example if it's a very technical subject and you feel someone with some background knowledge would need to make an assessment.
Innocent means that there's nothing wrong with the edit - it removes it from the queue, and the edit will not be reverted.

In my experience, roughly 15% of the diffs you will see are vandalism, 15% require good faith reverts, and 70% are innocent. That varies with time however, and if you look at WP:STiki/leaderboard you can see the other users' averages.

There are a few things that you can configure by playing around with it - note that you can switch off the option to warn users when you revert them - I would strongly discourage you from doing this, we should be issuing warnings/notices with reverts, especially when using a tool like Stiki, to make it clear why we have reverted.

Note too that at the bottom of the screen you have some hyperlinks allowing you to open the article, the article's history, the user's contributions etc. in a web browser - these can be very handy if you want to do a bit more digging around when you find a dubious edit - for example, someone inserting hate speech on one article will likely have done it on others.

Personally, I enjoy using Stiki much more than Huggle. They are quite similar - Huggle is another diff browser, it just works in real time. You can literally see the edits stacking up in your queue as they come in, and you also see other Hugglers reverting them while you're looking at them. That can put a bit of pressure on you to make quick decisions, which I don't like. Stiki only serves each diff to a single user (unless they pass on it), and so you can take all the time you need to make your decision. Don't get me wrong - Huggle is a vital part of the ecosystem, and users like Serols, Shellwood and Oshwah use it very effectively to catch most vandalism; I use it myself occasionally, if I notice that we're on DEFCON1 (see the Enterpriseybot template on my user page), but most of the time I prefer to take my time, mopping up the stuff the Hugglers miss using Twinkle or Stiki.

Anyway, let me know if you have any problems installing it; for now, I'll proceed with uploading the next part of this course... GirthSummit _(blether) 14:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Protection (continued)[edit]

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

Creation protection is case-sensitive, and applied to pages which have been deleted and repeatedly recreated.

Yep - if people keep recreating an article after it has been it's been deleted, we can salt it to stop further disruption.

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

Article talk pages which have repeatedly been subject to vandalism or disruptive editing can be semi-protected, however this should be used sparsely as it makes it much more difficult for unregistered and new users to contribute to an article. For admins, user talk pages can be semi-protected if blocking a user with talk page editing disallowed is unsuccessful for some reason.

Yes - this is rare, but can be used in serious situations.

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).

[Here's one I made earlier!] - Yoji Harada has been semi-protected for one month.

vwilding ^talk 21:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Good stuff.

Hopefully you'll have seen that you have been given access to Stiki now - I'd suggest that you install that and have a play with it. If you have any questions, put them up in the Stiki section and ping me from there - I'll add the next section of the course below and we'll continue in there. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

Hello, it's been a while! I'll admit I struggled on this one a while even before my educational hiatus; there's quite a variety of reasons for speeding deleting a page, I hope my summary retains the nuance of different rules and reasons.

Speedy deletion should only be used in certain cases - it's not for pages which were recently started or have recently survived a deletion discussion. I've covered only the General and Article rules so far, as I'm still trying to fully understand the rest - let me know if I should cover those too.

General:

G1. Pages containing nothing more than nonsense

G2. Pages outside of an individual's sandbox created as a test

G3. Vandalism or other information intended to misinform

G4. Recreating a page that failed a deletion discussion (and was subsequently deleted)

G5. Pages created by a blocked/banned/topic-banned user which are relevant to their ban (e.g. not pages made by a user on a topic unrelated to their topic ban)

G6. Uncontroversial maintenance deletions (e.g. redirects/pages blocking a move/pages in the wrong namespace)

G7. Requests by a page's sole author made in good faith

G8. Pages whose parent is non-existent (e.g. talk pages for a page which has been deleted)

G9. Deletions imposed by the WMF

G10. Attack pages who serve no purpose other than to harass or intimidate a person

G11. Pages which are exclusively advertising

G12. Pages which exclusively contain copyrighted material

G13. Abandoned page drafts which have not been edited by a human in 6 months

G14. Disambiguation pages which disambiguate one/zero pages.

Article:

A1. An article without sufficient context to uniquely identify its subject, excluding those which have been newly created.

A2. Pages in a language other than English, if they have the same content as a page on another Wikimedia project, e.g. a French language article that's present on fr.wikipedia.org

A3. Articles without any content, linking to external sites, Wikipedia categories, or containing content other than that suited to an article (e.g. chat-like comments)

No A4, A6 or A8 for some reason...

A5. Articles consisting solely of a definition/source/quote/etc which already exists on another Wikimedia project (e.g. Wikitionary/Wikisource/Wikiquote)

A7. Articles (about people, animals, organisations, web content, or events) with no indication that their subject is important/significant, that do not claim their subject to be significant.

A9. A7 but for a piece of music, where none of the contributing artists has an article and there's nothing to indicate the significance of the subject.

A10. A recently created article which is a duplicate of an existing topic and does not add anything new of value.

A11. Articles where the subject was invented by their author and has no credible claim of significance.

Lemme know your thoughts :) vwilding ^talk 21:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Looks like in my time away I've forgotten how to use templates, so here's (potentially another) ping for good measure! vwilding ^talk 21:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi -good to have you back on board! hope the exams went OK? I'll take a look through these tomorrow. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 22:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is good - you've clearly read through the guidelines carefully. Don't worry about trying to memorise all of these, you can always refer back to WP:CSD if you need to check. Just be aware that, if you come across a page that just looks wrong, CSD is an option. There are barriers these days to new accounts creating a page, so the place you most commonly come across blatant advertising or attack pages is in user space - I frequently patrol the New User Log and look for blue user pages - usually they're benign ('Hi, I'm a new editor, I like trains' or whatever), but they are also frequently copy/paste jobs from company websites (both G11 and G12), or occasionally attack pages created to harass someone - CSD in cases like that. See the next section for some questions about this... GirthSummit _(blether) 16:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion examples[edit]

In past iterations of this course, students have been asked to go out and actually tag 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.

CSD under G10 or A1 - I'm not sure if this is enough to consider it an attack page, but there's definitely not enough content to uniquely identify the subject.

Either of these - or G3 (Vandalism) would work for this. Personally, I would describe this as an attack page, and that's the CSD Criterion I'd report it under.

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.

CSD under G11 - The page is exclusively advertising. I'd also report the user at AIV as an advertising-only account.

You probably wouldn't need to bother with the AIV report - accounts with promotional usernames, that create G11-viable pages, tend to get blocked anyway. If they weren't blocked when the page was deleted, and continued to make promotional edits, the best place to report would be UAA - as a promotional username that implies shared use (more on this later in the course...).

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 5,000 subscribers on YouTube.

I'd consider this one - it's a possible CSD (under A1) but I think it's more of a stub that needs expansion and sources.

Well it's never bad to do a bit of digging to see whether you can improve an article; if all they're known for is school plays and self-published online albums however, this would probably meet the criteria at A7 for an insignificant person.

Scenario 4

A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content:

Bazz Ward was a great 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.)

Okay, so, one could argue this is a CSD under A3 - its content is chat-like and not really suited to an article? However, it could be the start of a good article, a quick Google search shows Bazz Ward to be notable in some degree and the author's claim that he was a great roadie is a claim to notability.

Good that you found some stuff about Bazz Ward. Did you notice that he is mentioned in our article about The Nice? In situations like that, a WP:REDIRECT might be the way to go - there isn't enough to build and article around, but redirecting anyone who searches for him to an article that contains some information is better than just deleting the page entirely.

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?

CSD under G12, as it's copyrighted material. If it wasn't copyrighted, I believe it'd be okay, depending on the context of the text and whether or not it fits as an article.

OK, so the response in both of these situations should be the same - CSD G12. We have to assume that all material is copyrighted unless it explicitly says that it's not - it's not enough for it simply not to claim copyright.

Scenario 6

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.

I'd figure out what language it's in, check the title against the Wikimedia project for that language. If the same page is found with (nearly) identical content, I'd CSD under A2.

Yes -grab a chunk of text and let Google translate tell you what language it is, and what it's saying. If it's promotional or vandalism, deal with it accordingly; if it's copied from another project, A2; if it's neither, flag for translation.

Scenario 7

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.

This can be seen as a request by the author to delete, and so CSD under G7.

Correct

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 a different namespace?

So, if this was outside of user space, it would be a CSD under G1 as patent nonsense, however G1 doesn't apply to userspace.

Correct

@Girth Summit: I think the above's correct, as always your advice is appreciated. By the way, thank you for your post on my Rollback application, should've asked you for that anyway :) vwilding ^talk 10:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Good work on the above - sorry it's taken me a few days to get back to you, getting towards the end of term for me and fairly manic. I'll add the next section shortly. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, and sorry for the short hiatus - the next section is below. By the way, I see that you've done a bit of Huggling since getting the rollback right - Huggle isn't formally a part of this course, but if you have any questions about it please feel free to ask. (I don't use it much myself, Twinkle and Stiki are more within my comfort zone, but I know my way around it and should be able to point you in the right direction if needed.) Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I see that you haven't made any contributions for a few weeks - hope you're enjoying the summer, I just wanted to check whether you are still interested in proceeding with the course? cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I've gone AWOL again, I'm currently on holiday with varied access to a computer (and not sure how best to edit Wikipedia from my phone, any tips if this is something you do?) - I'm very much still interested in the course and will get back into it this week :) vwilding ^talk 09:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries vwilding, just checking in with you really. Hope you're enjoying the holiday. I'm not a big fan of editing from a smartphone myself, it's fiddly and annoying, but some users seem to manage - see User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing for one editors thoughts on the matter. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Revision Deletion and Oversight[edit]

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.

If you believe an edit needs to be revision deleted, how would you request that?

I'd either send a talk page message or email to an administrator, or request it in the #wikipedia-en-revdel IRC channel.

The IRC channel is usually the best approach - it usually gets a pretty fast response.

If you believe that it's so serious it needs oversight, how would you request that?

If oversight is required, I'd request it using the Oversight email form or with the !oversight trigger on #wikipedia-en-revdel

Correct - if you're using IRC, use the !oversight trigger as you suggest, and make sure to wait for an oversighter to private message you before providing the diff.

Sorry it's been a really long time - my account has been renamed and I've returned from holiday, back to work and back to CVUA and anti-vandalism! vwilding ^talk 11:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Forgot the ping! vwilding ^talk 11:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Vwilding: @Viljo: I'm sorry for the delay in responding to this - I'm afraid I didn't get that ping. Can't see anything wrong with the formatting, so not sure what went wrong there, but anyway - good answers. I'll get the next section added shortly. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Viljo: Next section below - what was with the username change by the way? You don't have to answer that - it's entirely your business, I'm just curious/nosey ;) GirthSummit _(blether) 21:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I saw it had been unused for about a decade, and figured it was a better username so... why not? Slightly more anonymous than my last haha. viljo ^talk 18:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Usernames[edit]

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:

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 (words like admin, sysop etc), usernames that impersonate other people (either famous people, or other Wikipedians' usernames), 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 do about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why). If you need more information before deciding what to do, explain what more you need.

BGates

Alrighty, time to get back into the swing of things. I believe this one is trying to imply that the user's real name is Bill Gates - I'd check their userpage to see if they're an unrelated B. Gates, and if they're just another Wikipedian with a related name might encourage them to put up a notice if they haven't already, but would look at their edit history and consider a report to WP:UAA if their edits and summaries are an attempt to imply they are "the real slim shady", as it were.

Y Well done - this is ambiguous, you'd need to check their contribs. There must be many thousands of people in the world called Bob, Bredna or Barry Gates - but if they're editing Microsoft-related articles and, as you say, hinting that they are the real deal, report for impersonation. The account will be blocked until they can demonstrate they are who they say they are (usually by e-mail correspondence with the ORTS team).
LMedicalCentre

This implies shared use and I would want to talk to the user, confirm that they are one individual and encourage them to change the name to something like "NameAtLMedicalCentre".

If they are editing about the centre itself, just report at UAA as a promo username. If they're writing about other stuff and not obviously promoting their services, you could start such a conversation.

G1rth Summ1t

My first step would be checking with you if this is an alternative account of yours, I know some people use an account for some purpose (your Girth Sockit, for example). If it was a clear case of a user attempting to impersonate you, I would imagine it's straight to UAA.

Y Checking with me is a good precautiounary measure, but to be honest if a user hasn't made the connection themselves on their user page, it's probably a troll planning on disruption. I've been the target of this once, and have come across quite a few other similar accounts - if in doubt, report, if it does turn out to be owned by the actual editor they can always request unblock.
JoeAtBurgerKing

I believe this username is actually okay, as far as the username policy is concerned - although it implies a connection to a company, it's clearly an individual's account. My concern would be more if Joe's making edits to pages connected to Burger King as paid editing.

Well done again. This username is fine, but I'd look at the contribs - if they're editing about Burger King, or indeed any of their competitors, that would be clear COI which should be reported at COIN.

JoeTheSysop

A clearly misleading username. If the user isn't being disruptive, I'd probably approach them first and make them aware of the issue and ask them to change it. If this doesn't work, or they're clearly WP:NOTHERE then it'd report them at UAA.

Hard to imagine a new account with that name wouldn't be attempting to disrupt, but as always it's your call on whether to discuss prior to reporting.

Vwillding

Hmm. I'm not using Vwilding anymore, but I still have the redirect in place, so I guess this might be an attempt to impersonate me? Again, I think this depends on the user's actions; we might just have similar names, or they might be acting in bad faith, and that determines the outcome as above (although if they're clearly just here editing in good faith, I'd probably just leave them alone).

Hah - well, I guess this question is out of date now. The same applies to the earlier one about my username - recent change patrollers often get targeted by trolls (we spoil their fun, right?), I would advise you not to engage and simply report them.

D0naldTrump

This is a WP:REALNAME that implies the user is a certain US President, and unlike with BGates, it's clear that the user is trying to imply that they're Donald Trump. I, slightly too cynically I will admit, suspect that their editing will be disruptive and either particularly complimentary to him, or particularly abusive him, and would probably report them to UAA if this is the case. There's always the possibility that someone thought it'd be a funny username, and genuinely wants to contribute; but I think the key with the username policy is that context is key.

Yep.

FuckU

This is just offensive and should probably go to UAA.

Yep. For stuff as obvious as this, you can bypass the usual 'wait until they edit' rule - seriously offensive usernames are blocked immediately with no edits.

😜

Emoji usernames have been banned since 2017, so the user needs to change their username, but again context is key.

They're not permitted, but nor are they immediately blockable. If it bothers you, start a thread at WP:RFCN.

Viljo Hi - it's been a while since you updated this page (or indeed edited) - I'm assuming that you are taking a break from editing. I've got a few other students asking about starting courses, so unless you reply in the next few days to indicate that you want to proceed, I'm going to put this page on hold - let me know in the future if you would like to pick up where you left off. If you get this message, and would like to proceed now, please address this round of questions. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Viljo, Vwilding Since you haven't made any edits in over a month, I'm going to mark this page as inactive. Should you return to editing in the future and want to pick up where you left off, that would be fine - just drop me a note on my talk page. For now, I'm going to take you off my list of trainees, to free up some slots for other editors. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: You know, it feels really good to be back! I've done the best that I can with this, I hope I've got the essence of it when I think that context is key in how to respond with some usernames. There are some, like Evlekis' socks that I met the other day, that apart from their trolling were just deliberately designed to provoke an emotional response and I think that those are more appropriate for a clear-cut straight to UAA without discussion approach, but people ultimately do make mistakes if they don't know the policy and might wish to make a genuine contribution. viljo ^talk 11:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

viljo Yes, good to have you back. Feedback up there, new stuff down below... GirthSummit _(blether) 11:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Emergencies[edit]

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.

Who should you contact when you encounter a threat of harm on Wikipedia? What details should you include in your message?

Contact goes to Special:EmailUser/Emergency or the email adress emergency@wikimedia.org immediately with the diff of the edit, and to ensure it's dealt with, I'd probably hop in IRC to the revdel channel.

What should you do if an edit looks like a threat of harm, but you suspect it may just be an empty threat (i.e. someone joking around)?

Report it anyway - I'm not in a position to judge these things, and they need to be taken seriously.

@Girth Summit: viljo ^talk 11:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Girth Summit: - no worries if you've already seen this and are busy, but I've just realised I might've pinged you in the wrong format... oops! viljo ^talk 17:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, saw it, just got my head into other things - I'm got a few more things competing for my attention now I've got snazzy admin tools. These answers are correct - use your best judgment of course, a troll saying "If anyone reverts me I'll fucking kill them" probably needs to go to AIV rather than Emergencies, but if you ever come across something even vaguely credible then report it. Next section below... GirthSummit _(blether) 18:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users[edit]

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?

Trolls and vandals want to be recognised and known, and if a prolific vandal becomes part of Wikipedia culture, we are feeding into their infamy and their recognition. Denying this to them, ignoring their harassment and simply removing their vandalism, discourages them from continuing as they don't get achieve the status they desire.

How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you? (Note - this is not a trick question, but it's not a straightforward one. Have a think about it, make your suggestions, and then we'll have a discussion. There isn't necessarily a clear right answer, but I'd be interested to know the factors you'd consider.)

I would imagine that context will play an important role here. Vandalism is usually not done in good faith, and someone who repeatedly vandalises and pays no notice to warnings is likely out to troll, even if they post on a talk page asking why their edits keep being reverted. Something more innocent, like a user breaking 3RR and continually inserting their own commentary onto a page without heeding warnings - if they got in touch to ask what was going on, I think it would be important to assume good faith and give them the benefit of the doubt.

I think what they say does have a role to play as well - I dealt with a sockpuppet recently, and their posts on my talk page were just meant to rile me up and make me angry, with swearing and vitriol; I ignored them as best as I could, but swearing does not a troll make. I think it's quite understandable for someone to get very frustrated if their edits are being repeatedly being removed and they don't understand why. Ultimately, I don't think we can clear cut say "this is a troll, this is a user editing in good faith" without experience. I've noticed that I'm quite rusty in finding the right places and using the right tools, but as I do more things are coming back to me, and I suspect that an understanding a user's motivations is a bit easier with time and experience.

@Girth Summit: This is a really interesting question, and I'm very curious to see what you think of my response. viljo ^talk 14:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

viljo This is good analysis above. You're right - we ignore trolls and vandals because they crave attention, and by responding to them you feed that craving. When someone comes to your talk page, don't pay attention to whether they're polite or not - go back and look at the edits again, think about anything they've said, and ask yourself (a) was I mistaken, and (b) is this a good faith editor asking for an explanation (however rudely), or an attention-seeking troll. If you reverted in error, apologise and self-revert if necessary. If you think it's a good faith editor, explain why you reverted, and advise them how to do it better. If you're convinced it's a troll - revert, ignore, report at AIV for harassment.

Below is a new section, which we added to the early part of the course after you went off on your little break. We might as well cover it now, as it's important to understand... GirthSummit _(blether) 15:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Blanking[edit]

Sometimes during your patrolling for vandalism, you'll come across an edit that removes most, if not all, of the content from an article or section. It's easy to simply revert, warn, and continue on, but actually, these kind of edits usually require even more attention than the average malicious edit. Accidentally reverting helpful blanking is one of the main pitfalls that newer vandalism patrollers can fall into, so in order to avoid this situation, please read the following pages and answer the questions.

Before you answer these questions, it may be helpful to read WP:BLANK, WP:CR, and this user essay.

How could a blanking edit be helpful?

What are some of the main things to look for in an edit that blanks a lot of text?

Please find three examples of an edit that blanks content, and explain why they are either good or bad.

@Girth Summit: (Failed quite spectacularly there the first time...) Hiya! Just wanted to apologise for not doing this yet; things have got super busy at work (October is our 25th anniversary as a charity!) and I'll admit I've found it more challenging than most tasks. I'm looking forward to having a nice afternoon on Wednesday- tomorrow, rather, to do some editing :) viljo ^talk 10:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

viljo. No worries, take your time, busy here too. Congratulations on your anniversary. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)