Task #1
Twinkle
Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.
- Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.
Yes, I have enabled it.
Good faith and vandalism
When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. It is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labelling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.
- Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
- Answer:
- Good faith edits: Most editors try to help the Wikipedia project, not hurt it. They may try to follow the rules. However, some of those edits may not be constructive. For example, they may be written from a bias and fanatic's point of view, having original research or unreliable citations. Edit warring or copyright violations are also not vandalism.
- Good faith edits: Most editors try to help the Wikipedia project, not hurt it. They may try to follow the rules. However, some of those edits may not be constructive. For example, they may be written from a bias and fanatic's point of view, having original research or unreliable citations. Edit warring or copyright violations are also not vandalism.
- Vandalism: Any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The use of profanity, blanking of page, or insertion of nonsense into the page, etc.
- Vandalism: Any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The use of profanity, blanking of page, or insertion of nonsense into the page, etc.
- 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
- Answer
Warning and reporting
When you use Twinkle to warn a user, you have a number of options to choose from: you can select the kind of warning (for different offences), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4, for increasing severity). Knowing which warning to issue and what level is very important. Further information can be found at WP:WARN and WP:UWUL.
- Please answer the following questions
- Why do we warn users?
- We warn the users in order advise a user against actions that disrupt Wikipedia or to advise editors of common mistakes. The purpose of user warnings is to guide good-faith testers and dissuade bad-faithvandals or editors engaging in disruptive editing. You should check that the user has made harmful or disruptive edits before issuing a warning, and that they have not already been warned for the same action by another editor. The user must be given a chance to see, and react to, each warning given.
- We warn the users in order advise a user against actions that disrupt Wikipedia or to advise editors of common mistakes. The purpose of user warnings is to guide good-faith testers and dissuade bad-faithvandals or editors engaging in disruptive editing. You should check that the user has made harmful or disruptive edits before issuing a warning, and that they have not already been warned for the same action by another editor. The user must be given a chance to see, and react to, each warning given.
- When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
-
- Only Warning – Assumes bad faith, very strong cease and desist, first and only warning. Generally used in the case of excessive or continuous disruption/vandalism from a user or specific IP.
- Only Warning – Assumes bad faith, very strong cease and desist, first and only warning. Generally used in the case of excessive or continuous disruption/vandalism from a user or specific IP.
- Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?
- Yes, users should be seeing the actual message they received at the time the template was placed on their talk pages, not the current template message.
- We put {{subst:template}} instead of {{template}}
- We put {{subst:template}} instead of {{template}}
- What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
- If an editor continues to vandalize beyond a Level 4 warning or Level 4im warning, they should be reported to "Administrator intervention against vandalism". An administrator will then review their edits and determine if a block is required.
- If an editor continues to vandalize beyond a Level 4 warning or Level 4im warning, they should be reported to "Administrator intervention against vandalism". An administrator will then review their edits and determine if a block is required.
- Please give examples (using
{{Tlsubst|''name of template''}}) 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.
- {{subst:uw-delete1}} (used when some editors remove content/blanking the page without stating the reasons in "Edit Summary"
- {{subst:uw-delete1}} (used when some editors remove content/blanking the page without stating the reasons in "Edit Summary"
- {{subst:uw-npa1}} (used when some editors direct personal attacks agaisnt other editors)
- {{subst:uw-npa1}} (used when some editors direct personal attacks agaisnt other editors)
- {{subst:uw-npov1}} (used when some editors write the contents in a biased (non-neutral) point of view.
- {{subst:uw-npov1}} (used when some editors write the contents in a biased (non-neutral) point of view.
- {{subst:uw-biog}} (used when some editors make some edits regarding biography of living persons without a reliable source)
- {{subst:uw-biog}} (used when some editors make some edits regarding biography of living persons without a reliable source)
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
| # | Diff of your revert | Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff | TheQ Editor's Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [ Less Lonely Girl | Did not give the editor a warning as someone else already did |
|
| 2 | [ Greatest Cartoons | gave the user a test edit warning level 1 |
|
| 3 | [ [1] | gave the editor a level 2 vandalism warning as they made 2 repetitive unconstructive edits to the same article |
|
| 4 | [ Way | vandalism level 1 warning |
|
| 5 | [ of Lilo & Stitch | test edit warning level 1 |
|
| 6 | [ Morgan | vandalism warning level 2, as they made at least 2 unconstructive edits to the same article |
|
| 7 | [ Murray | vandalism warning level 3 as this editor made several unconstructive edits to the same article |
|
| 8 | [ John | test edit level 1 |
|
| 9 | [ [2] | level 2 vandalism warning |
|
| 10 | [ [3] | level 2 test edit warning |
|
| 11 | [ Mohammed Ahmed Al Kandari | gave this editor 2 vandalism warnings level 1 and 2 as they made 2 unconstructive edits within a short time period |
|
| 12 | [ Daly | level 1 vandalism warning |
|
| 13 | [ school | "advertising material" warning level 3, as the editor has received a prior level 2 warning |
|
| 14 | [ [4] | vandalism warning level 1 |
|
| 15 | [ [5] | vandalism warning level 1 |
|
There are a number of IP user talk page templates which show helpful information to IP users and those wishing to warn or block them. There is a list of these templates
{{ Shared IP}}- For general shared IP addresses.{{ ISP}}- A modified version specifically for use with ISP organizations.{{ Shared IP edu}}- A modified version specifically for use with educational institutions.{{ Shared IP gov}}- A modified version specifically for use with government agencies.{{ Shared IP corp}}- A modified version specifically for use with businesses.{{ Shared IP address (public)}}- A modified version specifically for use with public terminals such as in libraries, etc.{{ Mobile IP}}- A modified version specifically for use with a mobile device's IP.{{ Dynamic IP}}- A modified version specifically for use with dynamic IPs.{{ Static IP}}- A modified version specifically for use with static IPs which may be used by more than one person.
Each of these templates take two parameters, one is the organisation to which the IP address is registered (which can be found out using the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page. The other is for the host name (which is optional) and can also be found out from the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page.
Also, given that different people use the IP address, older messages are sometimes refused so as to not confuse the current user of the IP. Generally any messages for the last one-two months are removed, collapsed, or archived. The templates available for this include:
{{ OW}}for when the messages are deleted from the talk page.{{ Old IP warnings top}}and {{ Old IP warnings bottom}} for collapsing the user warnings and leaving them on the talk page.{{ Warning archive notice}}for when the messages are archived, and that archiving follows the usually naming sequence (that is, /Archive 1).
NOTE: All of the templates in this section are not substituted (so don't use "subst:").
Tools
Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#Tools includes a list of tools and resources for those who want to fight vandalism with a more systematic and efficient approach.
What you have been doing so far is named the old school approach. As well as manually going through Special:RecentChanges, it includes undos, "last clean version" restores, and manually warning users.
There are a large number of tool which assist users in the fight against vandalism. They range from tools which help filter and detect vandalism to tools which will revert, warn and report users.
Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool
Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool monitors the RSS feed and flags edits with common vandalism terms. It's a very simple tool, but which is useful for not having to go check each and every diff on Recent Changes.
Twinkle
The first tool I want to mention is Twinkle, it's a very useful and I strongly suggest you enable it (in the Gadgets section of your preferences). It provides three types of rollback functions (vandalism, normal and AGF) as well as an easy previous version restore function (for when there are a number of different editors vandalising in a row). Other functions include a full library of speedy deletion functions, and user warnings. It also has a function to propose and nominate pages for deletion, to request page protection to report users to WP:AIV & WP:UAA (which we'll get to later).
Rollback
See rollback, this user right introduces an easy rollback button (which with one click reverts an editor's contributions. I'll let you know when I think you're ready to apply for the rollback user right.
STiki
STiki consists of (1) a component that listens to the RecentChanges feed and scores edits on their possibility of being uncontructive; and (2) An application which scans through the most recent revisions on pages and scores the possibility of them being uncontructive.
Huggle
Huggle is a Windows program which parses (orders them on the likelihood of being unconstructive edits and on the editor's recent history) from users not on its whitelist. It allows you to revert vandalism, warn and reports users in one click.
Dealing with difficult users
Occasionally, some vandals will not appreciate your good work and try to harass or troll you. In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, you should not engage with them and leave a note at WP:ANI. If they vandalise your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. Please read WP:DENY.
- Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?
-
- if we respond to trolls and vandals, such users would experience such exceptional attention as empowerment, reward, and encouragement. Other users might be encouraged to start vandalizing too. Therefore, by denying recognition to their existence, we neutralize motivators for vandalism and disruption. Hence why they are blocked and reverted on sight.
- if we respond to trolls and vandals, such users would experience such exceptional attention as empowerment, reward, and encouragement. Other users might be encouraged to start vandalizing too. Therefore, by denying recognition to their existence, we neutralize motivators for vandalism and disruption.
- How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?
-
- A good-faith user will seek to know the reasons why their edits get reverted and will try to avoid making the same mistake in order to contribute to Wikipedia in a better way, while trolls will make vandalism no matter what. often, trolls will be far more blunt in their questions, and far less willing to comprimise.
- A good-faith user will seek to know the reasons why their edits get reverted and will try to avoid making the same mistake in order to contribute to Wikipedia in a better way, while trolls will make vandalism no matter what.
Protection and speedy deletion
Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only an administrator can protect or delete pages; however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion or request protection. If you have Twinkle installed, you can use the Twinkle menu to request page protection or speedy deletion (the RPP or CSD options).
Protection
Please read the protection policy.
- In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
-
- This level of protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, especially when it occurs on biographies of living people who have had a recent high level of media interest.
- This level of protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, especially when it occurs on biographies of living people who have had a recent high level of media interest.
- In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?
-
- Pending changes is a tool used to suppress vandalism and certain other persistent problems, while allowing all users to continue to submit edits. Pending changes protection can be used as an alternative to semi-protection to allow unregistered and new users to edit pages, while keeping the edits hidden to most readers until they are accepted by a reviewer. this is mostly used on BLP's with disruption, but where there are good edits by IP's.
- Pending changes is a tool used to suppress vandalism and certain other persistent problems, while allowing all users to continue to submit edits. Pending changes protection can be used as an alternative to semi-protection to allow unregistered and new users to edit pages, while keeping the edits hidden to most readers until they are accepted by a reviewer.
- In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
-
- On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus. Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others.
- Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus
- In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
-
- For articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. Contributors wishing to re-create a salted title with more appropriate content should contact an administrator (look for one who was previously involved) or use the deletion review process.
- For articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. Contributors wishing to re-create a salted title with more appropriate content should contact an administrator (look for one who was previously involved) or use the deletion review process.
- In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
-
- semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users. - however, I have seen very few cases of this ever happening!
- semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users.
- Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.
I requested the temporary semi-protection for this page
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=F(x)_(band)&diff=619130999&oldid=619121303 not the RPP diff, but good enough
Progress test
Congratulations, now have mastered the "basics" so we can move on. Please complete the following progress test, and I'll tell you what's next.
The following 2 scenarios each have 5 questions that are based on WP: VANDAL, WP:3RR, WP: REVERT, WP: BLOCK, WP: GAIV, WP: WARN, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, and WP:UN. Good Luck!
Scenario 1
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?
- What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?
- Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?
- 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?
- If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?
- Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{ IPvandal}} or {{ vandal}}?
- What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
Scenario 2
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 few lines of text copied from the company's website). 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 would you use?
- If you do revert which warning template would you use?
- Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?
- Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?
- Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?
Results
Your Score: