User:Girth Summit/CVUA/CuriousGolden

Hello CuriousGolden, 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) 13:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The start edit

Twinkle edit

Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. I see that you are already using it, but just to make sure you have read the instructions:

please have a read through WP:TWINKLE and leave a note here to confirm that you have done so.

@Girth Summit: I have read through WP:TWINKLE and have Twinkle enabled. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 14:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Good. See the first section below then... GirthSummit _(blether) 14:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

@Girth Summit:

Good Faith Edit is an edit that is not particularly done with the intent of disrupting the article, or breaking any rules. For example, new users who are not familiar with Wikipedia may often do edits which do not contribute anything to the article or delete parts of articles they consider not true or irrelevant. In these cases, good faith should be assumed and the problems with the user who is making disruptive edits should be discussed in the talk page of the appropriate article.

Vandalism is an edit that has the intentional purpose of breaking Wikipedia's rules, ruining the article and etc. These may include edits that add falsities to articles; delete sourced content; have offensive edit summaries or simply edits that add swear words or non-sensical things to the article. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 14:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden This is correct, so far as it goes - the difference is indeed about whether or not the intention of the editor is to cause harm to the project. You haven't said much about how you would discern between the two though. Don't worry - there isn't a 'right/wrong' answer to this - I'd just like to know what sort of things you'd be looking for to help you judge whether the editor is vandalising, or simply a misguided good faith editor. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Sorry for not answering in first message.

I'd try to always assume good faith unless the user is continuously making similar disruptive edits even after a warn. And if user's intent is fairly obvious (e.g. spamming the article with non-sensical things or inserting swear words in the article) then, I wouldn't assume good faith and treat the matter as vandalism. Also, one other way to find out if user's intent was malicious or not, is to see their contribution history. If they've continuously made disruptive edits in other articles, even after being told against it, then I'd consider it vandalism. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 16:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

These are good thoughts, CuriousGolden. Their history is important - look for a pattern. The content matters - curse words and abuse are vandalism, random characters could be a test edit. Carefully removing negative information could be POV whitewashing (which isn't vandalism), but blanking an entire article is pretty suspect. And you're absolutely right - we assume good faith if we're in doubt. So, if someone with their first contribution adds soeirngworuetbgweourgwerugw to an article, don't give them a vandalism warning. It could be they're just testing to see whether they can really edit a page. Assume good faith, give them a test edit warning the first time - you can always switch to vandalism warnings later if they keep doing it.

Question: are you familiar with using the Recent changes feed, and filtering it so that you're only looking at 'likely bad faith' diffs? If yes, we can move on, if not, I'll explain. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Yes, I have experience with patrolling Recent changes feed and I have it filtered to "very likely bad faith" and "likely bad faith" only. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib)

CuriousGolden Cool - OK then, please see the next task.

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, and explain how you came to your decision about each of them.

@Girth Summit:

Good Faith, but unhelpful:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purulia_district&diff=969442351&oldid=968629703&diffmode=source

Agree, this unsourced material isn't appropriate for our article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marich_Man_Singh_Shrestha&diff=969446509&oldid=967456779&diffmode=source

Meh - I can see why someone might have thought a link to Nepal was more useful in that context than a link to Nepalis - I don't think I'd have reverted that one personally, but you were within your rights to revert if you thought it was better before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gideon_Nieuwoudt&diff=969438457&oldid=950614362&diffmode=source

Yes, that should have been raised on the article talk page. (Ideally, you might have mentioned that in your edit summary, so the IP editor knows what to do next.)

Vandalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Clown_Week&diff=968900919&oldid=966038366&diffmode=source

Well spotted - I see that a number of other patrollers overlooked that one, you correctly reverted back to the last good version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Anderson_(cricketer)&diff=969445158&oldid=969256371&diffmode=source

Definitely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Keery&diff=969340067&oldid=969339952&diffmode=source

Yep

— CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 20:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden Hi - sorry to have left you waiting on this, I didn't get your original ping. See comments above - this is good work. On to the next section... GirthSummit _(blether) 15:34, 22 August 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

We can warn users for a lot of reasons. Ranging from a new person making good faith, but unhelpful edits (with a welcome template) to an obvious bad faith editor. (Disruptive editing, Vandalising are most common reasons for being warned)

Yes, but what this really is about is the reason why we bother warning them. There are a few answers to that - first, it gives them a chance to improve, and by choosing the right warning we give them links to the specific policies and guidelines that they're breaking. Also, it helps other patrollers and admins recognise that this is someone who has had a history of improper editing - if I see a new user with lots of vandalism warnings, I'm far more likely to block them than if I see someone who has never been warned.

4im would be only be appropriate if a user is continuously making disruptive edits in obvious bad faith or is vandalising a page.

We don't give out 4ims just for regular vandalism. 4ims are used in two circumstances - either it's if someone has been doing lots of vandalism but haven't yet been warned, or if they do something especially egregious - so, adding racist or sexist abuse onto a BLP, or making unsourced accusations of serious criminality. Regular vandalism just gets a level 1 warning then escalate as normal, even when it's obvious.

We should always substitute when placing a template on a user talk page and we can do this by putting subst: before the template name. E.g. {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}

I report them to WP:ANI and the administrators decide if blocking the reported user is appropriate or not.

Not ANI - for regular obvious vandals just report them to AIV using Twinkle. ANI is for more complex cases, where you need to explain in detail why you think something is problematic. If it's obvious, and the user has been sufficiently warned and is still vandalising, reporting to AIV is quicker for you, and should result in a speedy block.

@Girth Summit: Sorry I forgot to ping you. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 13:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Pinging again, because I suspect you didn't get the original ping. Sorry if you did. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 21:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden You were right - I didn't get the original ping. Pings are a bit odd in how they work - basically, if you forget to ping someone, you need to add a new ping on a new line and then re-sign. Simply adding the ping on an existing line, deleting your signature and resigning (which I think is what you did) doesn't work for some reason.

See above for some comments, then move onto the next task... GirthSummit _(blether) 14:13, 25 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 kinds of edits usually require more attention than the average potentially 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:

Blanking is acceptable for privacy reasons on articles about living people and also for copyright violations. It's also acceptable if it's a user blanking their own userpage.
We should look if the user is blanking random sets of texts (e.g. random words and sentences in order that makes no sense) or if the deleted material all relates to something (e.g. deletes everything about a specific event/incident). If the deleted material is completely random, then it is either vandalism or a new user testing things out. We should also look at the user blanking the page's edit history to see if most of his edits are good faith and helpful edits.
This edit has blanked most of the lead paragraph and replaced it with an unintelligible text, but has also provided a source for a claim on another part of this article. This means that the edit is most likely good faith and the user behind the edit just doesn't know English well (as it also can be seen from the edit summary he has provided).
This edit is vandalism. It doesn't seem so at first, but if you look at the user's contributions, it can be seen that they have added/deleted random material on the article before and after the edit I've linked.
This edit, as well as this edit by the same user on the same article is a bit hard to judge. The user clearly holds very wrong views and their edits are not helpful to Wikipedia, but they believe that with their edits they are contributing for the better of Wikipedia, so I wouldn't count it was vandalism, but instead an unhelpful edit. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 15:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

and a good analysis of those diffs. Agree that the first one is likely good faith, just someone who maybe made a mistake when adding a ref - I recently reverted a very experienced editor who made a similar mistake and removed a huge chunk of text by accident, it's easily done. Next task then... GirthSummit _(blether) 16:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Examples edit

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	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gacha_game&diff=976680184&oldid=976680092&diffmode=source	User spamming non-sensical words and profanities in the lead sentence. Has been warned about this by ClueBot once, I warned him again with warn-2	Y Definite vandalism.
2	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaun_Attwood&diff=976686767&oldid=976686622&diffmode=source	Putting unsourced offensive material in an article about someone	Y Clearly offensive, I've actually revdelled that as a serious BLP violation. I noticed that you didn't use Twinkle to apply the warning though, so it doesn't have the automated header. Be sure to use Twinkle to add the warnings, it's much quicker and easier than doing it manually. I'll go through the rest of these soon. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
3	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hector_Monsegur&diff=976689022&oldid=976684549&diffmode=source	Adding a random profanity on an article about someone	Y
4	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margot_(activist)&diff=976689531&oldid=976689347&diffmode=source	Changing a non-binary Polish LGBTQ activist's name into a male name, changing "activist" to "criminalist"	Y
5	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_F._Byrd&diff=976690270&oldid=976690130&diffmode=source	Inserting profanities into a biography	Y
6	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nancy_Schaefer&diff=976697118&oldid=976696922&diffmode=source	Changing a woman's occupation to "LOSER"	Y
7	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Story_of_the_Year&diff=976698240&oldid=976698191&diffmode=source	Inserting rude material about a music group	Y
8	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinary_Ung&diff=976698550&oldid=976698363&diffmode=source	Replacing a records company with a profanity	Y
9	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classless_Inter-Domain_Routing&diff=976698893&oldid=976698555&diffmode=source	User has already been warned for a similar disruptive edit of his and he did it again	Y
10	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masashi_Kishimoto&diff=976699714&oldid=976699708&diffmode=source	Adding random mean things to a biography	Y I note that this one was later revdelled by an admin - we'll cover that in a later section, but we take unsourced accusations like that very seriously. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Complete! Spent a good while on these :D. Was also great for implementing things I learned about warning users. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 13:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: About your reaction on #2, I want to say that yes I forgot to use Twinkle for the initial warnings I did, but later on I started using Twinkle :) — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 11:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Good to know. There's nothing technically wrong about doing it manually, but Twinkle is much easier and faster, plus the dates in the sections headers it creates are useful to other patrollers so they can quickly see which warnings are recent, and which are stale. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Very good CuriousGolden, I agree with your reverts and warnings on all of these. Let's move on. Please note though that with the start of the school term coming up, it may take me a little longer than usual to respond - please bear with me... GirthSummit _(blether) 11:11, 6 September 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?

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

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

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

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).

CuriousGolden Hi - just a quick ping to see whether you're still interested in continuing this course. If you don't want to finish it that's 100% fine - I hope it's been useful for you so far, don't feel the need to complete it if you weren't enjoying it. If you just want to take a break for a while, that's also fine - just let me know and I'll put it on hold. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I am! I'm just very busy at the moment because of a war going on in my country (Azerbaijan) and the internet access has been somewhat limited. So I have to use VPN, which unables me from editing Wikipedia (Internet access is back sometimes, which is how I'm writing this). Hope it's alright and I'm sorry for not informing you before. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 18:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Gosh CuriousGolden - I'm sorry you're caught up in that. I hope that you and your loved ones are affected as little as possible by the ongoing conflict. Please don't worry about the course, it is entirely I consequential - let me know if and when you're ready to continue, but for now stay safe. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 21:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Answers:

Page can be semi-protected when there is an active wave of disruption and vandalism by non-registered or non-confirmed users. It is also used to prevent sockpuppets.

Pending changes protection allows new users to still make edits, but the edits need to be confirmed by pending changes reviewer. It prevents most vandalism without blocking off new users from making edits and improving the article. It can be implemented if a page has persistent vandalism by new users or has copyright violations.

Page should be fully protected only if there is a constant edit war going on involving multiple parties or when there's constant vandalism from multiple different accounts/IPs. In this case, temporarily fully protecting a page is acceptable. Though it is administrators' duty to make sure the version of the page they're protecting does not have any vandalism, slurs, defamation and etc.

Pages can be creation protected (or salted) if a page with an inappropriate title or overall bad article names keeps getting created by users.

When that talk page has been subject to persistent vandalism acts by different users, then the talk page can be protected.

Link to my request which was approved a day later

@Girth Summit: — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 17:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden Hi, and sorry for the slow response. Your answers above are in the right ballpark, but you need to be clear on the specific reasons for the different levels of protection:

Semi-protection is for articles which attract a lot of interest from a lot of IP editors and new accounts - usually because the subject is in the news for some reason.
Pending changes protection usually used when articles get a lower, but consistent, level of disruption. It allows people to edit, but it generates work for people to check the edits, so it's not used for pages that are getting lots of attention.
Full protection isn't used for IPs - semi is enough for that - full protection is only applied when experienced editors with established accounts are edit warring over something, to force them to use the talk page.

Thanks for the diff of your report - let's move on. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion edit

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

A page should be speedy deleted if/when:

1) A page is full gibberish (or spam), non-English material, poor-translated material.

2) Pages that are full of lies and blatant hoaxes.

3) A page that was already discussed to be deleted is recreated

4) The page is created by a blocked/banned user.

5) The author, who is the only substantial contributor to the article requests its deletion in good faith

6) It's a talk page without a corresponding article; subpage without a parent page; file page without a file; redirects that don't redirect anywhere

7) It's an attack page: Page is dedicated to harassment of a person/thing and is entirely negative in tone.

8) Page is exclusively dedicated to promoting something (Advertisement).

9) Page has copyright violations

10) It's an inactive (6 months+) draft namespaces; userspace with no content.

11) It's an unnecessary disambiguation link (e.g. has only 1 link)

12) Article is about unimportant person, event, organization, animal. For example, random small car crash

13) If it's an article about same thing that already has an article

@Girth Summit: — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 07:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there CuriousGolden - these are indeed some of the specific circumstances. Maybe this question should be rephrased a bit though - really, I was wanting you to consider the general situation, rather than the specifics. A page should be speedily deleted in it is clearly and unambiguously unsuitable for Wikipedia, and no editor who how is here for the right purposes would reasonably disagree. When you come across a page like that, choose from the available criteria to nominate it for deletion. Note that certain criteria only apply to particular spaces though - criteria for articles start with an A for example, and for user space it's a U; the general criteria, which apply everywhere, are G. Let's take a look at some examples... GirthSummit _(blether) 12:19, 25 October 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.

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.

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.

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.)

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?

Scenario 6

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

Scenario 7

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

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?

@Girth Summit:

1) G10

2) G11

3) Not speedy deleted. Should be WP:PROD

A PROD would be fine, but you could consider this for an A7 speedy deletion - none of those claims, in my view, amount to a credible claim of significance, since really we're only talking about a few high school plays, some self-published albums (anyone can upload stuff to SoundCloud) and a few thousand YouTube subs.

4) A1

I guess you didn't search for this. For an A1 to apply, there has to be insufficient information to even work out what the subject of the article is (eg: Joe is awesome!). A7 might potentially apply, but being a 'hall of fame roadie' might constitute a WP:SIGNIF claim, so we can't do that. However - we actually have an article on The Nice which discusses both Bazz Ward and Lemmy, making this is a good candidate for a REDIRECT, so that anyone searching for Bazz Ward at least gets taken to an article with some information about him.

G12 applies in both circumstances. If you come across something that you suspect has been copied from another website, do a G12 regardless of whether the website asserts copyright - an admin will review and take action if it's a violation.

6) Not speedy deleted. Should be listed on Pages needing translation into English instead

Yes, but first grab some of the text and put it into Google Translate (or your preferred translation tool) - what is it saying? If it's an attack page, or advertising, or vandalism, then nominate according to what you see. Then check the Wikipedia for the relevant language - if it's simply a copy/paste of that article, it's a WP:A2 deletion. If it's an original article which is unproblematic, but is in a foreign language, then flag for translation as you suggest.

7) G7

8) I wouldn't do anything if it's their user page. If it's an article, I'd speedy delete with G1

Correct - that's not acceptable in article space, but a userpage covered in gibberish isn't hurting anyone, they're probably just testing how to edit.

— CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi again - sorry for the slow response, I've been wrapped up in real life stuff lately. Please see the feedback above, and the next section below. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:49, 7 November 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?

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

Good day, @Girth Summit:. Answers:

1) If it's revdelete for copyright violation, then I just put a Template:Copyvio-revdel tag on top an article or I can message an administrator at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests (mostly would do this if it's a private matter)

2) I email Oversight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Oversight

— CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden Hi there. This is correct - another option you may want to consider is going onto the IRC channel (there's a link to it on my user page) - in my experience, from before I was an admin, that was a better way to get help than e-mailing an individual admin, and it doesn't have the same risk of drawing unwanted attention to the diff that posting on an admin's talk page would. Next section below... GirthSummit _(blether) 17:52, 14 November 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.

Good day, Girth Summit. Sorry for replying a bit late. Here are the answers:

1) Ignore. It doesn't strictly violate any username policy. Only one it somewhat might be violating is WP:MISLEADNAME as it's the abbreviation of "Bill Gates", but the user's real name might also be "Bob Gates", which would be shortened the same way.

Yes - unless this editor's behaviour made you think they were trying to impersonate Bill Gates, this isn't a problem. If they were trolling articles about Microsoft though, report to UAA.

2) Talk to the user and ask them to change it as it violates WP:CORPNAME.

If they are editing about medical subjects in general, you might be nice and talk to them about it first. Usernames like this are very often promotional though - if they are promoting their medical centre, just report to UAA.

3) Talk to the user and ask them to change it as it violates WP:MISLEADNAME.

This kind of thing happens quite frequently - report accounts like this immediately, even if they haven't edited, it is almost certain to be a troll, vandal or long-term abuser trying to stir up trouble.

4) Ignore. I don't think this breaks any policy.

Yes - this is fine, provided they are following COI guidelines. If they aren't, report to WP:COIN, the username is within policy.

5) Talk to the user and ask them to change it as it violates WP:MISLEADNAME.

I'd advise you just to report this - there's no good faith reason for trying to claim to be a sysop when you're not, it's almost certainly a troll.

6) Same as above.

As previously - I'd urge you just to report this and not to engage with them, they're probably a troll.

7) Same as above.

This is too close to the currently serving president for comfort - report this one, they would be asked to provide evidence that they are who they say they are, or to choose a different username.

8) Report user at WP:UAA for WP:ATTACKNAME.

9) Talk to the user and ask them to change it as it violates WP:NOEMOJI.

Yes - this is a violation, but it's not something we'd block someone for. If it bothers you, you can ask them to change it, or start a discussion at WP:RFCN.

— CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Good work CuriousGolden - see my comments above. Assuming good faith and communicating with people is always a good thing, but when it comes to trolls we also have WP:DENY, which we will talk about more later in the next section. If someone is trying to impersonate another editor, it is almost certain to be a troll - don't engage, just report and move on with your day. Next section below.... GirthSummit _(blether) 12:56, 21 November 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?

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.)

Good day, Girth Summit. Here are the answers:

Because trolls' actions are done in an attempt to attract attention to themselves or, to put it bluntly, "for the memes". If they don't get the attention or angry response they want, they'll lose the will to troll on Wikipedia. Also, some trolls can become very offensive if confronted, therefore its best to ignore them (and report to ANI if they break a rule) for your own sake.
I'd always try to assume good faith first even if the user's edit was them just blanking an article or adding gibberish. But, in my opinion, one of the easiest ways to identify between a troll and a good-faith user is to look at their edit summaries. Most often, the trolls have offensive/mean edit summaries. Another good way to identify is from the way they asked the question in your talk page. If it's "Hey, why did you revert my edit?", then I'll assume good faith (provided that their edit summaries or things they added to the article weren't pure vandalism). But if it's "hey asshole why did you fucking revert my edit" (sorry for the profanities), then it's quite obviously a troll or someone who is WP:NOTHERE.

— CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden So, your first answer is spot-on - a lot of trolls do it for the attention, they actively seek out conflict. If you give them what they're looking for, you're only encouraging them to do it more. Ignore them and many of them will go away and go troll elsewhere.

The second answer seems like common sense, but there is a flaw there. It's far more common than you would imagine for good faith (and even experienced!) editors to show up at your talk page and say "Hey asshole, why did you fucking revert my edit?!". It's not alright for them to speak to you like that, but it's not that uncommon. Some people get really mad when they get reverted, and people don't behave optimally when they're angry - some of them get shouty. So, shouting and swearing is not the best way to judge whether someone is a vandal/troll or not - your best bet is to look at their contributions again, and consider: is this a person (potentially with anger management issues) who is genuinely trying to improve our content? Or is it a troll who is just here looking for a fight?

If it's the former, be completely polite and professional. If your revert was a mistake, apologise, immediately and without reservation, they'll usually calm down. If you were right to revert, explain to them why you did it - again, professionally and politely. If they don't calm down, and continue to abuse you despite your professional tone, speak to an admin you trust or go to ANI.
If you decide it's a troll/vandal, just revert and report to AIV without engaging.

See the next section below on rollback. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Rollback edit

In light of your recent contributions, I expect that if you apply for the rollback permission at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, an administrator would be happy to enable it on your account, but first we should demonstrate that you understand what the tool is, and the responsibilities that go along with it.

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.

If you're interested, take a look at our rollback guideline at WP:Rollback and feel free to answer the questions below. The rollback right is not an essential part of this course, so if you're not interested, feel free to say so and we'll skip this section.

Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.
Hopefully this will never happen, but it does occasionally. If you accidentally use rollback, what should you do?
Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?

@Girth Summit: Good day, sorry for replying somewhat late again. I do consider applying for rollback permissions. Perhaps I will, after I get results on my answers to the questions above. Anyhow, these are my answers:

A rollback may be used to revert vandalism, edits I've made, edits in my user page, edits by banned/blocked users, bad edits by broken bots or a misguided editor. A rollback may not be used if the edit is a good-faith edit that I disagree with (this is about standard rollback without an edit summary).
If I accidentally revert something, the best solution is to manually restore the older version. I could rollback my edit again, but that'd create confusion for other editors. On the other hand, if I used the rollback button instead of the undo to revert a good-faith edit that I don't agree with, then I should try to make a second edit (perhaps a grammar fix) and include the edit summary of the previous revert in this edit's summary.
No. I can just use the undo button.

— CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Hello, pinging again in case the previous one didn't work. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden Hey - sorry, your first ping was fine, I'm afraid it slipped my mind to respond to. Your answers are correct.

Do you think that Rollback is something that you would use? I did a skim through your recent contribs, you've been very active lately but it doesn't look like CV patrolling. Have you done much of that recently? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I do think I can use Rollback and I still plan on active CV patrolling, I've just chosen to focus on another topic until I finish this course because in every lesson I learn a new thing that completely changes how I perform patrolling, so I want to learn everything 100% and then focus on actively CV patrolling. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, understood. The thing is, when you make a request for Rollback at PERM, the patrolling admin will look for a need for the tool in your recent contribs. I could enable it myself, but I prefer to allow another admin to act as a second pair of eyes. Here's my suggestion: you're now at the end of the course, so I'll upload the final exam. Go through that, and spend a few days applying your CV skills with Twinkle. Once the evidence is clear, make an application for Rollback at PERM and I'll add a note of support. What you you reckon? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

That's perfect, I'll make sure to be active in CV patrolling for the next days. Thank you. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden OK - final exam below. Take your time, ping me when you're done. Good luck! GirthSummit _(blether) 19:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Final 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'd describe this edit as good faith and I'd warn them level 1 for Test Editing
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?
It's probably good faith, test edit again, so I would warn them Level 1 for test editing. If they've done it more than once, I'd just give them an appropriate level warn (e.g. level 2 for doing it times, 3 for 3 times and so on).
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?
Most of the time it's probably test/accidental edit, so it's good faith. If they kept doing it, I'd give more serious warns to them.
Y It's highly unlikely that removing the first three paragraphs of an article would be an improvement - but it's always worth checking what they actually removed before reinstating it, which you didn't mention you'd do. Always check - it could be someone removing vandalism or defamatory content that someone else added, for example.
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'd give them a Disruptive editing level 1 warning since I can't give articlesig warn again. I'd give higher levels of disruptive editing warning if they continued.
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?
I'd check the edit to see what the user thought was 'wrong'. If it's an actually problematic thing that they have removed, I wouldn't do anything. But if it's just a case of WP:JDLI, I'd revert and leave a warning on their talk page.
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-blank1}}
Y
A user blanks a section of Cricket without giving an explanation.
{{uw-delete1}}
Y
A user adds random characters to Aardvark.
{{uw-test1}}
Y
A user adds 'Donald is the best!' to United States.
{{uw-vandalism1}}
Y
A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Donald Trump.
{{uw-vandalism1}}
Y
A user puts "I HATE CHEESE!" on Edam (cheese).
{{uw-vandalism1}}
Y
A user adds 'and he was seen dropping litter in Hyde Park' to Hugh Grant.
{{uw-biog1}}
Y
A new user adds curse words to your user page (this is their first edit).
{{uw-npa1}}
Y Not however that you could probably report them immediately to AIV or ANI, and I would expect them to be blocked - since this is their first edit, they are almost certain to be a sock of a vandal you previously reverted or reported, it happens I'm afraid.
A user blanks Dell, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
{{uw-vandalism1}}
N This calls for a 4im blanking warning, since they've done it repeatedly.
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 !
G1
N G1 is for nonsense - random strings of characters. This is an A1 - not enough context to identify the subject of the article.
The Island of Orkvanderland is an island three hundred miles off the coast of Western Australia, inhabited by orks.
G3
Y
Terry is the a great singer.
A1
Y
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
Wouldn't do anything because I don't think it violates the policy
Y It would be worth looking at their edits - this sounds like a band name to me. If they are writing about a band of that name (or creating a promotional userpage), report for promo username; otherwise, you're right, leave them alone.
Poopsniffer
I think it should be changed as it seems like a trolling name under WP:DISRUPTNAME. I'd ask them to change it in their talk page.
Y You could talk to them about it if you chose to. This is one of those situations where they name is very childish, but it's not so offensive that I would block it unless they were also vandalising or otherwise WP:NOTHERE.
StopVandalBot
Change under WP:MISLEADNAME because it can make people think the account is a bot account. I'd report at WP:UAA
Y
Joshtheadmin
Same as above. Report at WP:UAA under WP:MISLEADNAME as it can confuse others that the user is an admin.
Y
poiuytrewassdfhukjhgffghjghhkhgfhdrhjjv9876543
I've seen lot of usernames with random numbers and letters, so I think this one is okay.
Y This is rather disruptive, it's so long (and random) and would make effective communication difficult. It's probably not worth blocking for the username alone, but I'd look closely at their contribs - they're unlikely to be up to anything good.
GeoffBarnes
Wouldn't do anything because I don't think it violates the policy
Y
JeffBridgesFan
Wouldn't do anything because I don't think it violates the policy
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)?
WP:NOT3RR allows exception when reverting vandalism. Though this only applies if the vandalism is obvious.
Y Yep - if it's obvious vandalism, you can go over 3RR. Be careful though - 3RRNO exemption are read very narrowly, if in any doubt flag the issue at a noticeboard rather than continuing to revert yourself.
Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
WP:AIV
Y
Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
WP:ANI
Y
Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
WP:UAA
Y
Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
WP:ANI
Y
Where and how should an edit war be reported?
WP:AN3
Y
Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
Y

@Girth Summit: Hey! Sorry for replying so late, I was busy with university exams. I'll await your response. Thank you for being a great teacher throughout the whole course. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries CuriousGolden - see my feedback above. I'll calculate the score and drop you a note on your talk, but I can confirm that you have passed the course - well done. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Completion edit

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 91%. Well done!

As a graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox (make sure you replace your enrollee 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.