User talk:Pro-anti-air/CVUA/Wikieditor662: Difference between revisions

Line 101: Line 101:

::::Okay great… well, should we move on to the next assignment? [[User:Wikieditor662|Wikieditor662]] ([[User talk:Wikieditor662|talk]]) 19:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

:::::@[[User:Wikieditor662|Wikieditor662]] Yeah let me look at the course. @[[User:Anti-pro-air|Anti-pro-air]] You fine if I take over from here? – [[User:LuniZunie|LuniZunie]]([[User talk:LuniZunie|talk]]) 19:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

::::::@[[User:Wikieditor662|Wikieditor662]] I’m going to take over, I think I would like to see some more anti-vandalism work. Partly because I need to get to know you, and partly because I see a few (minor of course) issues; most of them being which template to use and such. – [[User:LuniZunie|LuniZunie]]([[User talk:LuniZunie|talk]]) 19:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

::::Uh, [[Special:Diff/1337733508|that’s what I just did]], every revert in the 5 days, not that much though ~~[[User:Anti-pro-air|kewl sock]](anti-pro-air)(no talk) 19:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

:Okay, and just to be sure I remember it correctly, I go to Special:Recent Changes, and filter out the safe edits so only the suspicious ones remain, and then press vandalism for the ones that are clearly vandalism? [[User:Wikieditor662|Wikieditor662]] ([[User talk:Wikieditor662|talk]]) 22:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

You should get diffs for 2-15, #1 is fine. Yes, if you revert, you should give a warning, it’s actually one of the guidelines for rollback. If you AGF rollback, you should explain why in the edit summary. Reminder to create a new table, you don’t have to go fast, quality over quantity! —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 05:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping – @Wikieditor662: It may be best for further questions to be here instead 🙂 —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 05:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I completed the new table! Wikieditor662 (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Pro-anti-air for your feedback. How do I rollback with twinkle, and do I have to get the user permission? If so then should I apply? And also, should I redo a new table but only replace the ones you crossed out in red? How about the yellow ones? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For twinkle, when you are viewing a diff, such as Special:Diff/1322712167, if it is the current revision, you will see rollback (AGF) || rollback || vandalism (assuming you have these turned on in Twinkle preferences). —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 04:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking the rollback options will prompt you to provide an edit summary, vandalism will not, and will revert all consecutive by the same user. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 04:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, great! But what is the rollback user group for if it does nearly the same thing? And did you see where I asked should I redo a new table but only replace the ones you crossed out in red? How about the yellow ones?? Thank you! Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is commonly referred to as pseudo-rollback, and is slower than normal, mediawiki rollback. With a single button that very quickly reverts multiple edits. With rollback, you also gain access to more powerful AntiVandalism tools, the next section is actually about them! Yes, you should redo the table, but instead of whatever method you use to find edits, use Special:RecentChanges. Remember that you do not need to do this quickly, quality > quantity/speed, (or I guess you want pending changes reviewer faster? 😉 —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 04:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to tell you, but I actually have been using Special:RecentChanges this entire time.

Remember that you do not need to do this quickly, quality > quantity/speed, (or I guess you want pending changes reviewer faster? 😉 haha, sorry if I’m rushing too much! I’m just a very fast and excited person in general… is it okay if I do the assignment over multiple edits though? That might help me slow down, although I am being worried of being accused of edit farming if I do that.

Yes, you should redo the table but again, what parts of what I’ve done before should I keep?

PS Thanks for being so patient with me!

Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, really?

[1] Why is it flagging extended confirmed editors?

[2] took 10 minutes

[3] reverted edit made 4 days ago, were you manually going through these contribution to find one that is “clear vandalism“?

[4] took 28 minutes

[5] took 35 minutes

[6] took 37 minutes

I’m confused, could you clarify? If you were using RecentChanges, why would it take you so long to revert? —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 04:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under the recent changes, there were different settings that I was trying to play around with, such as automatic flagging of how risky articles are to be, and my thinking was that if a change was older then the chance someone will be taking over it in the middle of me trying to do so would be lower… over 30 minutes for an edit does sound weird though, I think I may have been doing some other things in between edits.

PS could you take a look at the other questions I asked right before your answer? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying.

How about this, you use my RecentChanges settings, when new edits appear, open them in a new tab. If they are vandalism, click “vandalism” and warn them. If it is not blatant vandalism, click “rollback” and type a quick reason, such as “unsourced”, “editing test”, or “MOS violation”. Twinkle will automatically open their user page, select the correct warning and warning level, then close the pages and check RecentChanges. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 17:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, would this be a good example? [Steve Smith (cricketer): Difference between revisions – Wikipedia] unfortunately though, it didn’t automatically warn them so I had to do it manually… Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine, (8 minutes), I don’t know why it didn’t open the talk page automatically, you should check your Twinkle preferences or see if you have pop-ups enabled.

When warning manually, you should warn them like this: {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Steve Smith (cricketer)}}.

I did a little RecentChanges patrolling as an example, check my contributions. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 19:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So like this? [The Death of Emmett Till: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia] and wdym 8 minutes? I didn’t start immediately after you sent your message…

As for the twinkle preferences, are u refering to one of these?

Revert and rollback

Only operates if the relevant box is checked below.Reset

Reset

When this is on, the desired options must be enabled in the previous setting for this to work.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that it took 8 minutes to revert the edit after being made, yes, made sure the relevant settings are on. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 20:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great! Now should I continue, and if so, then should I redo a new table but only replace the ones you crossed out in red? How about the yellow ones? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can redo whichever ones you want. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 21:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm I suppose that to make up for my previous mistakes, I’ll redo everything except for the first one from a previous table, as well as the example I just showed you now. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pro-anti-air I finished the latest assignment btw. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I’m pretty busy right now, I will put the next section very soon. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 21:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I completed that new section as well 🙂 Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw, I will grade it when I have the time. I checked your diffs, and they were an subpar, why would you say the diffs were within a month, when some of them are years old? A7 Is for articles with no reliable sources, not too less, take them to AfD instead. Feel free to read my very short CSD log, User:Pro-anti-air/CSD_log, which I recently enabled for NPR. Cheers, —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 03:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I’m having a really hard time finding articles which truly meet the CSD criteria, most of them seem to be fine. Is there a better way to find them? I’ve been new page patrolling for a while with no luck. Also, what do you mean about the month thing? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pro-anti-air I believe I should be good to go now, one of the new articles I marked for CSD got their problem fixed, and the other was indeed deleted per my reasoning. All good? Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found the time to grade ya! “what do you mean about the month thing?“, in the request you linked to me, you wrote: “all of these were created and reverted this month“, which they weren’t, saw the G11ed page before it was deleted. It did notice you CSDed the page around 4 minutes after it’s creation, which may be a bit too fast, you should give the creator time to improve. For the mainspace articles you tagged, no patience for promotional only NOTHERE accounts. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 00:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well my bad if all of the diffs weren’t from the same month. Other than that, how are my answers looking? Are they good and are we ready to go to the next section? Or do I need to redo anything first? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I’ve noticed you wrote I’ll excuse these for now, they are a bit situational, next section! was that also for the page protection request? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, most vandals don’t try very hard, and barely any pages rises to the level of needing protection. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 00:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great! I replied to all of the new questions. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was fast, doing Thanksgiving things right now. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 01:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Idk why I’m so fast… lol! I hope you have a lovely thanksgiving 🙂 Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at your UAA reports, and wow, username violations are actually pretty rare, and even rarer are ones as obvious as the 3rd user… Note that you can report to UAA, AIV, request protection and speedy deletion through twinkle, a lot faster, but you’re doing great manually! —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 01:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it worked out! Although I think it’s possible that the third user may have already been blocked by the time I reported them. Are we ready for the next section? And what part of the way am I so far? Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey was undercooked

, oops! I advise you to double check your answers, you missed ~~~~. AGF, but I hope you read WP:USERNAME carefully. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 02:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I updated the answers! And I hope you manage to have your Turkey cooked some more. Are the answers looking better now? Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pro-anti-air I updated it again and the answers should be even better now. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

? I thought I already graded it, guess it didn’t save? I’ll try to do so (again) tomorrow. Also, all three users in your UAA report have been blocked. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 06:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I’m pretty sure one of them was blocked before I made the report, while the other two were after. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pro-anti-air What’s next? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pro-anti-air Following up, it’s been over a week… is everything alright? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procrastination (and real life) —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 04:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor662: I’ve released the progress text, let me know if you find any errors, also, you might want to read File:PCR_granting_guide.png. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 16:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and that guide is funny (albeit a little sad because I once got rejected from it in the past). Should I fix my answer that got an X before we move on, or am I good to go? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pro-anti-air Hey, what’s been happening? Are we finished? Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia limits what I can say but please read through WP:RBK and WP:SOCK thank you —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 03:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia limits what I can say What do you mean?

Done, I read it (and also took a look at Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry). What’s next? @Pro-anti-air Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

_{Uh, just T&S stuff}

I will look through your contribs, and then post the test so you can graduate. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 03:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve noticed you haven’t done much anti-vandalism since 24 November 2025. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 03:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, should I do more? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! In fact, monitering period time! Do more antivandalism for 5 days, and I will moniter your contributions and leave notes. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 21:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you’re most of the way through! Some small, miscellaneous paragraphs, test, monitoring period, and then graduation! —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 02:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it’s been 5 days, how did I do? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pro-anti-air Are you there? What’s been happening? Did I pass? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I guess I’m the teacher now?? UH I’ll start writing ~~kewl sock^{(anti-pro-air)}_{(no talk)} 04:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, fine, most of them were blatant vandalism, remember to use edit summaries for non-vandalism edits, and give out warning for unsourced additions. Use Twinkle to report users, with the ARV module. ~~kewl sock^{(anti-pro-air)}_{(no talk)} 04:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? Who are you? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor662 This is pro-anti-air’s alt account. – LuniZunie_(talk) 19:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They have been on a break for personal reasons, I’ll help check over your contributions =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 19:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great… well, should we move on to the next assignment? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor662 Yeah let me look at the course. @Anti-pro-air You fine if I take over from here? – LuniZunie_(talk) 19:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor662 I’m going to take over, I think I would like to see some more anti-vandalism work. Partly because I need to get to know you, and partly because I see a few (minor of course) issues; most of them being which template to use and such. – LuniZunie_(talk) 19:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that’s what I just did, every revert in the 5 days, not that much though ~~kewl sock^{(anti-pro-air)}_{(no talk)} 19:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and just to be sure I remember it correctly, I go to Special:Recent Changes, and filter out the safe edits so only the suspicious ones remain, and then press vandalism for the ones that are clearly vandalism? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! If it’s not vandalism, you should click “rollback” or “rollback (AGF)” and type out a quick edit summary if you find other problems wrong with it. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 22:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply