User:Girth Summit/CVUA/Synoman Barris

Hello Synoman Barris, 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The start edit

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. While it is often necessary to revert such edits, we treat them differently from vandalism, so it is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the tasks in this section.

Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.

A Good faith edit is an edit that is made by editors with good intentions but do not meet the standards of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia while a vandalism edit is an edit that is disruptive and it is made to vandalise articles in Wikipedia. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Done

Synoman Barris Yes - the key is the intention. The only thing that we consider vandalism is stuff that is done with the intention of damaging the project. We revert other stuff too - edits which are badly worded, poorly sourced, original research or whatever - but we behave differently than we do for vandalism, and we call them good faith edits. The difficult bit is how you would tell them apart - would you mind explaining your initial thoughts on that? Don't worry about giving the 'wrong' answer - just tell me what you think - then we can explore further.

By the way, your ping didn't work because you didn't sign your comment in the same edit that you added the ping. If you forget to ping someone, you need to add a new ping on a new line, and sign the post. (If you're worried about cluttering up the page, you can use {{hp|Girth Summit}} - the ping will be sent, but it doesn't appear on the page. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Good faith edits such adding original research, poorly sourced e.t.c are those edits that are made by an editor whose main idea is to help the encyclopedia but sometimes may not understand the policies and other stuff. Vandalism are just outright nonsense such as adding racism opinions, advertising your social profile on an article, and adding unnecessary homour or content which is disruptive, that’s how I differentiate them. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

These are interesting ideas - the racism one is something which comes up depressingly frequently. The main thing that you need to do is look at the edit and think 'is there any way in which this could have been added by somebody who thought what they were doing was an improvement?'. If the answer is yes, we don't treat it as vandalism - we might revert, but we leave an edit summary explaining why we're doing it - and the edit warring policy limits the number of reverts we may make (this is important). If you are certain that no reasonably person could be in any doubt that the edit is intended to damage the article, then you may revert without an edit summary, as many times as is necessary to protect the article until the account or IP is blocked - WP:3RRNO protects your actions. Do be aware though that this is judged strictly - if in any doubt, assume good faith, leave an edit summary, and bring it to the attention of others before you go over three reverts.

Let's move on and look at some examples. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:32, 21 June 2020 (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. Place diffs below

1.GF Got this from your edits. The user wanted to add content to the article but the edits were grammatically incorrect so you had to revert it. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess that getting them from my contribs is kind of cheating, but I'll let you off! Yes, I reverted this because the it was ungrammatical - the subject of the clause was herbicides, which do not die - the plant does that. I could have restructured it instead of reverting, but to be honest I thought it was unnecessary, so just did a good faith revert.

2.GF2 The user added edits that were probably true to the article, but did not provide a reliable source to verify their sensitive edits to the BLP. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes - this looks like OR/personal analysis. Not vandalism, but good revert.

3.GF3 The user was adding content but maybe did not realize that their edits would destroy the infobox and structure of the article. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That might have been vandalism actually, but you did the right thing by assuming good faith when in doubt. Articles about footballers commonly get this kind of thing - either a fan of one club, who wishes the subject played for their club, changing the article to say that he does; or, a fan of the player, changing an article to make it look like they play for a top-flight club. Either way, if someone is deliberately adding false information, that is a form of vandalism - but, if in doubt, just revert with the edit summary 'unsourced', or as you did here, fixing the infobox.

Note I may not have indicated some of the edits as good faith, but I indicated my reason for revert in the edit summaries if that is okay.

1.Vandalism Expressing his hate for the subject therefore adding disruptive and offensive edits. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Clearly not actually the person's name, just unsourced defamatory comments.

2.Vandalism vandalism meant to degrade the subject of the article Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep, just insulting the subject.

3.Vandalism made to damage the article Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, silly vandalism.

@Girth Summit: Done Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris Excellent - I agree with all of your assessments. Let's move on to the next section... GirthSummit _(blether) 18:28, 23 June 2020 (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

To notify them that their edits or contribution is against Wikipedia’s policy and guidelines and therefore has been reverted Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is the core of it - we tell them that what they have done has been undone, and we point them towards the relevant policies. The warnings have a couple of extra effects - they provide a logged record of escalating warnings, so that the next patroller who reverts them can see that it's not a 'first offense', and they make the admin's job easier when they are reported - if I see a report on a user who has been warning multiple times, it's much easier to justify blocking than it is for an account that has not been warned.

When their case of excessive or continuous disruption or vandalism from a user or IP. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes - if you see especially offensive material, such as racist abuse within a BLP or unsourced accusations of sex crimes, go straight to 4im.

All templates in user talk namespace including user warnings should be substituted by adding subst: after the opening braces of the template Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

If you use Twinkle, it does this for you automatically, but should you ever place a template manually, remember to substitute.

Immediately report to AIV for administrator intervention. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Again, Twinkle makes this really easy - don't try raising reports at AIV or SPI manually, it's a nightmare!

@Girth Summit: Done Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Good work Synoman Barris - see the next section below. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. For each revert/warning please fill in a line on the table below.

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff	Trainer's Comment
1	diff	Deliberately changing the name of a person, warned with a general note, since was their first vandalism	Y
2	diff2	Shouting In an article ,seems like they were promoting Dell. They were already given the final warning and reported to AIV, so I didn’t add any more warnings	Y Yes, if they're already been reported there's no point adding more warnings; I see they're blocked now.
3	diff3	Adding negative comments, not maintaining NPOV, warned with a L1 vandalism note	Y At first I was thinking that a POV tag might have been more appropriate, but when I read the second sentence I agreed that your warning was the best choice.
4	diff4	The user joined Wikipedia to vandalise it in bad faith, i had to start with a L3 warning and keep a close eye on the user before reporting to AIV	Y Looking at their filter log, I'm inclined to agree.
5	diff5	Adding their own view about the school, had to jump to L3 warning since this was not the first time	Y Agree with the revert, and the escalated warning - they had made several edits to this article, and to another one.
6	diff6	Never understood what they had to gain by this , but their edits were clearly vandalism	Y Silly vandalism
7	diff7 Reported [1]	This one was the most persistent vandal, I had to add 4im warning to all their IP socks and report	Y I see that the IP was blocked, and the page was also protected to stop further IPs disrupting it - good report.
8	diff8	Personal attack on a person, clearly vandalism, started with a L1 warning	Y Yes - this was appropriate, and I see that the account was blocked shortly afterwards.
9	diff9	Had to keep a close eye on this one, I used “Not social” and later L2 warnings	Y Yes - your warning was fine, but a straight-up vandalism warning would also have been fine - putting his own personal facebook page into an article about a town is not credibly an attempt to improve the article.
10	diff10	Changing the correct name of a person to a wrong name	Y Very strange - I don't understand what they were doing, but it definitely wasn't constructive.

@Girth Summit: Done Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris Good work, I agree with all of your reverts and warnings. Let's move onto the next section. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:57, 1 July 2020 (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. 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?

When their is persistent disruption from IPs and non-confirmed users in an article. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 23:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

It is a better alternative to semi-protection when a page is prone to less vandalism. It allows good faith editors to make changes to an article, but will be visible to the public unless reviewed by a pending changes reviewer. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

When there is Edit warring or content disputes among editors Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes - specifically, edit wars from established accounts.

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

When a deleted bad article is recreated multiple times. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 23:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Talk pages are protected for a limited duration, when their are severe cases of vandalism. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 23:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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).

diff, made it today after serious BLP violations and vandalism, page got protected Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice catch

@Girth Summit: Done Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 23:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris Excellent work - next section is below. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion edit

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

A page should be speedy deleted it meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion for:

General/G criteria
Article/A criteria
Redirects/R criteria
Files/F criteria
Categories/C criteria
User Pages/U criteria
Templates/T criteria
Portals/P criteria
or in exceptional circumstances Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Done Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris This is right, in the sense that the criteria are there to help us judge what can be speedily deleted. The most important part of CSDs though is that they are for uncontroversial deletions - something that no reasonable editor would disagree with. Spam, copyvios, attack pages, or articles about completely obscure subjects, that sort of thing. If in doubt, don't apply a CSD tag - consider alternatives, such as setting up a redirect, applying a PROD tag, or nominating to AfD. Let's look at some examples... GirthSummit _(blether) 13:02, 5 July 2020 (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.

I Would request speedy deletion per G10 Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes - this is an attack page. It would also qualify for A7 (non-notable person) and for BLPPROD, but if a page is a G10 that will get acted upon much more quickly - there's a special category which appears right at the top of the Admin dashboard for G10s, they're dealt with promptly.

Scenario 2

A user with the username "GoodTimesLLC" creates a user page with the following text:

'''Good Times LLC''' is an organization dedicated to helping your children get the highest quality education at an affordable price. Visit our website at goodtimes.info and contact us at 123-456-7890.

Request speedy deletion per G11 Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is purely promotional.

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.

Subject may not meet WP:GNGat all, so I would request speedy deletion per A7 Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, this is an A7. However, the bar for A7s is considerably lower than GNG - all a page needs to have for an A7 to be invalid is a credible claim of significance - see WP:SIGNIF for more on this. If in doubt, ask for another pair of eyes, or send to AfD rather than putting an A7 tag on the page. In this case, I wouldn't consider having starred in school plays, producing self-published albums, or having 5,000 subs on YouTube to be a credible claim of significance; however, if it said they were broadway plays, that would be a different story.

Scenario 4

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

Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz.

(Attribution: Ritchie333 came up with this scenario as a question to an old RfA candidate. I've borrowed his example here. Hint: Try Google searching a few key terms from this short article.)

Request speedy deletion per A1 Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No, this isn't an A1 - there is enough information (a name, and the fact that he was a roadie) to identify the subject. It's also not an A7 - if he is in a hall of fame somewhere, that's a credible claim of significance. The best thing to do here is to consider alternatives to deletion - if you'd searched for the name, you'd have found out that Bazz Ward is mentioned in our article on The Nice - you could have replaced the text with a redirect to that article. Then, if someone comes to Wikipedia and searches for Bazz Ward, at least they'll find out some information about him - which is better than deleting the page.

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?

Possibly be a WP:COPYVIO , request speedy deletion per G12 Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct. Note that the same applies regardless of whether or not the website has a 'all rights reserved' or similar - we assume that copyright applies, unless there is notice saying that it is in the public domain, or released under a CC license or something similar (and even then, it's usually necessary to make an attribution). If in doubt, tag it and an admin will review.

Scenario 6

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

Would check if either A2,A5 or G3 applies, if not I’ll tag with a need translation template. I may also check for copyright violations. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 7

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

Might have blanked in good faith, G7 criteria applies Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes - I'd usually give it fifteen minutes or so (maybe they're changing the content), but if it's blank after that tag it for G7.

Scenario 8

A new user creates a user page with nothing but the following content:

Jlakjrelekajroi3j192809jowejfldjoifu328ur3pieisgreat

How would this scenario be different if the page was created in a different namespace?

If in another area apart from user space, I would request speedy deletion per G2 Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes - gibberish is fine in user space, but anywhere else this is G2 gibberish.

@Girth Summit: Done Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Excellent Synoman Barris - see above for a few comments, but good work overall. Next section is below... GirthSummit _(blether) 13:06, 6 July 2020 (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 policies linked 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 would use IRC to contact an administrator. Leaving them a talk page message may reveal the difference to many other users who may be watching the talk page. So to keep it private I’ll use IRC. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Email the Oversight team or contact them via IRC Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Interesting, I actually love “legal stuff” Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes - IRC is the fastest way to get something looked at. If it's just revdeletion you need, go onto the revdel channel and type !admin - you can post diffs openly in that channel, however, if you think it might need oversight, type !oversight and wait for someone to reply - don't post the diffs there, wait until an oversighter replies and then private message them the diffs. E-mail works too, but IRC is faster - those are the only two channels I would recommend, don't put stuff on admins' talk pages, they often have lots of watchers. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:40, 6 July 2020 (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 particular attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.

Describe the what you would 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.

May be trying to impersonate Bill Gates, watch the user for a while for editing patterns before reporting to UAA Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes - this is possibly and attempt to impersonate Bill Gates; on the other hand, it's entirely possible that it's just someone called Belinda Gates, or Barry Gates, or indeed a completely different Bill Gates (there must be thousands of people called that around the world!). This would only be worth reporting if their editing was problematic - if they were editing Bill Gates for example, and their edit summaries referred to the subject in the first person.

Report to UAA as promotional username after user edits Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right about waiting until the user edits. If the edits are promotional, report straight away; if they are adding sourced content that isn't about a medical centre of that name, consider just putting a note about WP:UPOL on their talk page and suggesting that they chance their username.

This guy may be working at burger kings “if it exists”, I’ll take time to review edits if they breach WP:COI Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This kind of username is explicitly permitted by WP:UPOL - it's discussed at WP:ORGNAME. No problem provided they comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID requirements - if their edits were problematic, this would be a case for WP:COIN rather than WP:UAA.

Misleading username, report to UAA if user is not actually an admin Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, report this one. (I can confirm that there are no sysops with a username like that!)

Report to UAA for impersonation Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep - this has happened to me a couple of times, and I've seen and blocked various attempts to impersonate other editors. It is a common trick for trolls, just ignore and report them, don't engage.

Impersonating a real person Donald Trump. I would look at the edits before reporting to UAA Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes - but since it's not just an initial, it's less ambiguous than BGates - I'd suggest reporting this once they start editing.

Offensive username, if the user makes problematic edits I’ll report to UAA Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This was a bit of a trick question - it could potentially be interpreted as mildly offensive, but not so much that it would be blocked. On the other hand, they might have created an account with a silly name to vandalise - in this case, I'd look at their editing. If they're vandalising, report to AIV; if they're not, I'd just leave them to it.

Clearly offensive, report user to UAA, immediately after an edit Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes - this one is much more severe, and would be blockably offensive.

Impersonating “Oshwah” an admin on Wikipedia, would report to UAA for impersonation Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep

😜

Non-script username, violation of WP:NOEMOJI Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a violation of WP:NOEMOJI, but you didn't say what you would do about it. For future reference, don't report to UAA - if it bothers you, usernames like this need to be discussed at WP:RFCN - they're not blockable, but the user can be required by consensus to change it. If they're vandalising, of course, it's a trip to AIV.

@Girth Summit: Done Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Good work Synoman Barris - I'll upload the next section shortly. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:08, 10 July 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?

I should email emergency@wikimedia.org, citing the page where the threat was made and the appropriate diff.I will also request oversight at IRC and avoid high traffic notice boards. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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)?

I will still report and leave the evaluation to the Wikimedia foundation staff. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: A quick done Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris Yep - that's a quick section, and your answers are correct. Onto the next... GirthSummit _(blether) 08:45, 11 July 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?

Never feed the trolls or “vandals”, they just want recognition Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes - they are usually looking to get a reaction from somebody. Don't insult them, don't engage with them at all - completely ignoring them (aside from reverting, issuing obviously automated warnings, and ultimately reporting them) is the most reliable way to get them to lose interest and go away.

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 look at their edits which I reverted, if it mostly consists of good faith edits, I would consider that a good faith user( also after having a clean look at their edit history). If the users edits are mostly blatant vandalism, I would consider the user a troll and I would simply revert their edits on my talk page or user page Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a good answer. You're absolutely right - look at the edits themselves, and the account's history. Something that you shouldn't attach too much importance to is whether or not they are polite on your talk page. If someone is reverted, they are sometimes pissed off about it, and respond poorly - they may be angry when they come to your talk page. Look again at the edits - if you think you made a mistake, then regardless of how rude they have been, self-revert and apologise. They usually calm down quickly, and will hopefully apologise themselves for overreacting. If you look at their edits and are convinced that they are trolling you however, just revert them and report them - don't engage with them.

Reflect on the guidance at WP:PRIVACY, and suggest steps that you could take (or avoid taking) to protect yourself from harassment.

Simply I would avoid disclosing any personal information on Wikipedia unless necessary, but avoiding high traffic namespaces. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes - I'd strongly advise anyone involved in counter vandalism not to give too much of themselves away. I have the town I live in and my job on my userpage, which is perhaps more information than I should really be revealing; you should decide how much you want to give away, and err on the side of caution. There is no situation in which it is necessary for you to disclose personal information on-wiki - if anyone ever asks for it, you are entitled to refuse (and I'd advise you to do so). If you ever do so accidentally, contact a member of the oversight team and they will redact the information for you.

@Girth Summit: Done Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris Good answers. See below for the next section... GirthSummit _(blether) 13:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Rollback edit

I see that you already have the rollback permission - this is the point in the course when I would normally suggest that a trainee applies for it, and the questions are designged to demonstrate that you understand what the tool is, and the responsibilities that go along with it. Let's run through them anyway to make sure!

The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced counter vandalism operatives to revert vandalism with the click of one button, not unlike the "rollback" button that you've already been using in Twinkle. This would give you a new rollback button in addition to the three you've been seeing in Twinkle. The new rollback button is slightly faster than the Twinkle rollback button, but more importantly, having the rollback right gives you access to downloadable counter-vandalism software like Huggle.

Take a look at our rollback guideline at WP:Rollback and answer the questions below.

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

Reverting obvious vandalism
edits made by the reverting user
edits made in owns userspace
edits by a banned user or misguided user

It should not be used when reverting good faith edits where an edit summary would be useful.Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully this will never happen, but it does occasionally. If you accidentally use rollback, what should you do?: revert your edits with an edit summary like "accidental use of rollback" with the reason for revert, or instead you can follow the rollback with a dummy edit, explaining reasons for revert.Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?: No, rollback is a one time button that doesn't leave edit summaries. It should only be used when reverting obvious vandalism. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: a quick done, i had familiarized myself with this section when requesting.Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris All good - I thought you'd be familiar with this already. The only thing I'd comment on is in your first answer, where you mention a potentially 'misguided user' - I don't know exactly what you mean by that? From my perspective, when you perform any good faith revert (for example, unsourced content, or unexplained removals), you are reverting a misguided user. To be clear - don't use rollback for that. Use a Twinkle blue or green, and leave an edit summary. Other than that - you clearly understand what it's for.

Right - I think we've just about finished the course. Tomorrow, I'll go through and make sure we haven't missed anything, and assuming there's no gaps, I'll add the FINAL EXAM! Don't worry, I'm sure it will be a breeze for you. Before I add it, are there any questions you'd like to ask, or comments about the course? Let me know if there's anything you're not sure about or would like to go over again. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 20:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris dammit, botched ping. Hate smart phones! GirthSummit _(blether) 20:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: No worries, it happens. I also came across this awesome tool, SW viewer, have you ever tried it? Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with SW viewer - can you give me a link? GirthSummit _(blether) 20:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: https://swviewer.toolforge.org/ Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth SummitI hope when i am experienced enough to be a trainer I'll add it to the course, if its allowed Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris I just had a look, it seems a bit like Huggle, which I'm more familiar with - have you tried using that? For the course, I tend not to get into any apps (apart from Twinkle, which is just an add-on option for the regular interface) - for me, it's more about teaching people when to revert and report, rather than the tool they use to do it.

I'll put the exam below - you don't need to finish it all in one go, just ping me when you're done. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Alt Exam edit

Please read each of the following questions carefully, and ensure that you have responded fully - some of them ask you to expand on what you would do in different situations. When responding to numbered questions please start your response with "#:" (except where shown otherwise - with **). You don't need to worry about signing your answers.

Part 1 edit

For each of these examples, please state whether you would call the edit(s) described as vandalism or good faith edit, a reason for that, and how you would deal with the situation (ensuring you answer the questions where applicable).

A user adds 'What does this button do?' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
I would give edit tests warnings three times and if they continue after the final warning I report to AIV
Y
A user inserts '###################################' into an article, having never edited before. Would you treat it differently if they had done the same thing once before?
If the user has never edited before I'll give a level one edit test warning and head straight to their talk page to give them advice on editing. If they continue, I'll give vandalism warnings the next three times and then I'll report to AIV
Y
A user deletes the first three paragraphs from an article, without leaving an edit summary. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?
It may have been done in good faith i.e maybe it was pure hoax, i will check the article myself to confirm that. if done in bad faith i would give level 1-4 blanking warnings before reporting
Y
A user adds their signature to an article after once being given a {{Uw-articlesig}} warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?
I would give a Level 2 vandalism warning and try to advice the user on how and where we should use signatures, if the user continues after that i'll take it to WP:ANI for admin intervention.
Y
A user removes sourced information from a BLP, with the summary 'this is wrong'. First time, and after that? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions?
If the user has a history of positive edits, i would consider it good faith and not immediately revert, instead i'll take a look at the sources myself. If the user makes disruptive edits, i would take a quick look at the sources reverted and ill revert and give a level 1 blanking warning
Y

Part 2 edit

Which templates warning would give an editor in the following scenarios. If you don't believe a template warning is appropriate outline the steps (for example what you would say) you would take instead.

A user blanks Pasta.
uw-blank
Y
A user blanks a section of Cricket without giving an explanation.
uw-delete
Y
A user adds random characters to Aardvark.
uw-test
Y
A user adds 'Donald is the best!' to United States.
uw-vandalism
Y
A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Donald Trump.
uw-attempt
Y
A user puts "I HATE CHEESE!" on Edam (cheese).
uw-vandalism
Y
A user adds 'and he was seen dropping litter in Hyde Park' to Hugh Grant.
uw-biog
Y
A new user adds curse words to your user page (this is their first edit).
uw-harass
Y
A user blanks Dell, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
4im Uw-delete
Y
A user blanks Dell, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
Report to WP:AIV
Y

Part 3 edit

What CSD tag you would put on the following articles? (The content below represents the entire content of the article).

Tim Spinks is the fastest runner in Park Grove School, and won the house cup three years running.
A7
Y
NCPP Delivery gives fast, efficient delivery service - go to npcc.com for more info!
G11
Y
Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
A1
Y
The Island of Orkvanderland is an island three hundred miles off the coast of Western Australia, inhabited by orks.
G3, hoax
Y
Terry is the a great singer.
G11
Y I'd say this is more of an A1 - who is Terry? Not enough information to go on.
Fuck all you assholes!
G3
Y

Part 4 edit

Are the following new (logged in) usernames violations of the username policy? Describe why or why not and what you would do about it (if they are a breach).

TheCosmicPatrollers
Violation of WP:ISU, implying shared use.Report to UAA
Y Maybe. It's plural, but that isn't enough to be blockable (see WereSpielChequers). It sounds a lot like a band name, so I'd wait until they edit to see whether they are writing about a band of that name - that's the time to report.
Poopbubbles
Offensive, but cannot be blocked at UAA, if the user makes disruptive edits i would report to AIV, since their username also implies they are not here to build an encyclopedia
Y
StopVandalBot
Misleading username, if the user isn't an approved bot, report to UAA
Y
Joshtheadmin
Misleading username, report to UAA
Y
poiuytrewassdfhukjhgffghjghhkhgfhdrhjjv9876543
Confusing username, give uw- username, if no response report to WP:RFCN
Y
GeoffBarnes
Looks good to me
Y Well done. We have an article about Geoff Barnes, but he's a fictional character, so there's no concern about being an attempt at impersonation.
JeffBridgesFan
If the user adds disruptive, non-neutral edits to Jeff Bridges i would give a uw-npov
Y

Part 5 edit

Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.

Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
Yep, when in violation of WP:3RR, unless when reverting obvious vandalism
Y Yes - it's sometimes easy to get carried away when you see obviously problematic, but good faith, editing. Familiarise yourself with the exceptions at WP:3RRNO, and do not overstep them. If in doubt, get more eyes on the situation either by approaching an admin who is active at the time, or reporting to a relevant noticeboard.
Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
WP:AIV, with Twinkle , since it makes it simpler and automated.
Y
Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
WP:ANI, using Twinkle automation
Y
Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
WP:UAA, using Twinkle automation
Y
Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
WP:ANI, using Twinkle automation
Y
Where and how should an edit war be reported?
WP:AN3, after warning the editor, most preferrably using Twinkle
Y
Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
WP:BLPN, if its very serious, contacting an admin or oversighter would be approprive for oversight or revdel
Y

@Girth Summit: Looks like am done, sorry for taking long, i have been quite busy in real life. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris No problem - I'll try to review your answers in the next day or so. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Completion edit

Synoman Barris: Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy, on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction and graduation from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with 97%. Well done! GirthSummit _(blether) 14:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

As a graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox as well as the graduation message posted on your talk page (this can be treated the same as a barnstar).
{{User CVUA|graduate}}:

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.

@Girth Summit: You are a good teacher Girth, Thank you so much. It almost seems like you were a real teacher in real teacher in real life, you are Civil, mature , patient and have a lot of Knowledge. Nice learning from a great person as you. Thank you Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Synoman Barris - by the way, check out my userpage, I am a teacher in real life! Happy editing GirthSummit _(blether) 16:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Lucky Students you have there!, got the opportunity of becoming one for a little period of time, but it won’t end here. Cheers Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)