User:Girth Summit/CVUA/Eyebeller

Hello Eyebeller, 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) 11:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The start

Twinkle

I see you have been using RedWarn extensively. I'm much more familiar with Twinkle, and that's the tool I'll ask you to use as we work through this course. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.

Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.

@Girth Summit: Done Eyebeller (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Eyebeller Great - OK, onto the actual content... GirthSummit _(blether) 13:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism

When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. 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 discuss what factors you would consider when trying to tell one from the other.

@Girth Summit: A good faith edit is when an editor is trying to help the encyclopedia, not harm it. Vandalism is when the editor is deliberately trying to disrupt the encyclopedia. For example, if a new user changes the style of an article incorrectly, it isn't vandalism as maybe the user is not familiar with MediaWiki and it's style or the Manual Of Style. Another example of a good faith edit is when someone adds unsourced content. They may not be aware of Wikipedia's policy on reliable information backed up by reliable sources. In both cases, it is better to explain to the user Wikipedia's policies which they may not be aware of. However, if a user repeatedly continues to continue this type of editing, after receiving and acknowledging the advice, it can be perceived as subtle vandalism.

On the other hand, a vandalism edit is when the user is obviously not trying to help the encyclopedia. For example, removing content without an obvious reason or modifying the page on purpose to reduce its readability. Initially, good faith should still be assumed. That's' why the level one warning template calls the edits unconstructive, not vandalism. However, if the edits continue, good faith is lost and the warning level continues to go up to level 4 and then a block.

There are various signs I would look at to distinguish between these two types of edits:

Has the user received any warnings before about the same type of edit? For example, if the user has received warnings about editing tests and they continue to make edits that look like tests, I would be leaning towards viewing it as subtle vandalism. But if the user has received editing tests warnings before and they make an edit that isn't sourced with references, good faith is assumed as that's a completely different part of the policy. Warn about using references, assume good faith and move on.
Look at the user's filter log. If I think an account is vandalism-only, one of the things I'll do is look at their filter log. If they've received numerous warnings and disallows from filters on multiple pages, I will most likely interpret any unexplained content removal that gets through the filters as vandalism.
Look at the user's other contributions. If the user has made a lot of unexplained content removals and has received no warnings, it is still possible that they are good faith edits when you look closer. For example, the user may have already done their homework on references and maybe removing non-cited material. However, it may still be good to leave a message on the users talk page reminding them to use edit summaries so other editors don't misinterpret their edits.
If it is an IP, any block history's from the IP would not be a deciding factor. IP's can be full of users. Just because one user vandalised, doesn't mean the others will too, even if it looks like it.

Eyebeller (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a really good, detailed answer Eyebeller - you're right, it's all about intent, which can be hard to gauge. Your thoughts about things to look at are all good suggestions - sometimes it's obvious (nobody who writes 'Fuck Wikipedia' is here with good intent), but often you have to think about it. The main thing is that, if in doubt, you should assume good faith. Revert, yes, but don't call it vandalism and explain why you are reverting. If their subsequent convinces you that it was vandalism after all, at least you have erred on the side of caution. Right, next step. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:38, 23 October 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.

@Girth Summit: Good faith unhelpful edits:

1 - Possibly an accident or a test
Y
2 - Even though loads of sources agree with the fact that he wasn't burned with gasoline, the editor may have heard something different, not read any sources and just modified the article
Y Hmm. I'm sure this is good faith, but there's something more going on here, that the patroller who reverted didn't pick up on. The article says that it was a 'fire accident', but it also says in the body of the text still says that he was 'murdered' after the revert - something doesn't add up there, this is the kind of case where you have to look a bit deeper at the history. I saw some other recent unsourced additions, and the source cited after the 'murdered' assertion did not support it, so I've edited it a bit.
3 - The user may just be unfamiliar with Wikipedia and the fact that there is no talk in articles, no previous warnings
YYeah, we could AGF and give that as a test edit.

I'll come back and do the vandalism ones later - good work so far. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism:

The first two have already been blocked by one of the most prolific anti-vandalism admins around, and the third one is clearly just trolling so yes, good work.

Eyebeller (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Good stuff Eyebeller - next task below. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

When you use Twinkle to warn a user, you have a number of options to choose from: you can select the kind of warning (for different offences), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4, for increasing severity). Knowing which warning to issue and what level is very important. Further information can be found at WP:WARN and WP:UWUL.

Please answer the following questions

@Girth Summit: - Sorry for the delay in replying, for some reason I didn't get a notification when you reviewed the vandalism edits.

We warn users to tell them what they're doing is wrong and to assume good faith and give them a chance to change before they are blocked. They can learn from their mistakes and hopefully contribute to the encyclopedia constructively although this doesn't always happen
Y Yes, this is right, but there are more benefits to warning. First, if you choose the right warning, it gives links to the relevant policies and guidelines - so, if someone is adding unsourced content, or removing sourced material, or just test editing, the warning will give them some potentially useful information. Plus, a history of warnings on the account or IP's talk page can help other patrollers and admins see quickly that they have been causing disruption already, and it can make a block more justifiable.
You use a 4im warning when the user has already significantly disrupted the encyclopedia, maybe making already more than 4 disruptive edits or using a range of accounts and IP's that are obviously linked. By giving them a 4im warning, you still give them one last chance to change
Y If you suspect someone is using a range of accounts, go to WP:SPI; if it's a bunch of IPs that you suspect are related, ask at ANI for someone to see if they can calculate a range block, or ask for page protection - don't worry about individually warning over one of them. 4im warnings are for when an account or IP has been causing disruption multiple times, but nobody has warned them yet, or it is for especially egregious violations. If you see someone adding racist or sexist commentary to a BLP, for example, don't worry about a level 1 warning - go straight to 4im and report if they repeat it.
You should substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page by adding subst: as a prefix before the name of the template. This will make the template be written out in code on the page instead of being transcluded
Y Twinkle does this for you automatically, but worth knowing if you ever have to place a warning template manually.
If a person with a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again, you report them to Administrator intervention against vandalism and in most cases, the user will be blocked
Y Yep. It's really easy to do this using Twinkle - go to the user's talk page as you would to give them a warning, and from Twinkle's menu select 'ARV' - tick the boxes, put a comment if you want to, and you're done.

Eyebeller (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Good stuff Eyebeller, and no worries about taking a couple of days to complete a task - there's no rush. OK, so next is a section about times when it might be better not to revert too quickly - see below. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Blanking

Sometimes during your patrolling for vandalism, you'll come across an edit that removes most, if not all, of the content from an article or section. It's easy to simply revert, warn, and continue on, but actually, these kind of edits usually require more attention than the average dubious 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:

A blanking edit could be helpful if the content that was removed has issues. For example, if it was unsourced or violated part of Wikipedia's policy, such as the policy on biographies of living persons
Some things to look for:
- Has the user left an edit summary as to why they're removing the content?
- Has the user had a history of blanking contents without explanation?
- Has the user been warned about unexplained removal of content?
- Has the user left something on the article's talk page?
- Has the user got a filter log of attempting to blank pages?
- Is the blanking logical? i.e. is it a paragraph or is it random and removes half of a sentence?
- Has the blanked text been replaced with nonsense?
- Is the blanked content sourced?
Examples of blanking edits:

Eyebeller (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Good stuff Eyebeller. I agree with your assessment of these examples, and the things you mention are all good things to consider. The last one is worth unpacking a bit - you've said 'is the blanked content sourced?'; I'd like to say 'is the blanked content reliably sourced, and relevant to the article?'

Let me tell you a story that I cringe when remember. An IP was removing a whole section from an article, without any edit summary or talk page discussion, and the information was supported by sources. A bunch of patrollers, including myself and at least one admin (this was before my RfA) were reverting and warning the IP; there was a brief ANI thread, the IP got blocked, but when a more thoughtful admin reviewed the content and sourcing, they pointed out the assertions were about a criminal charge against a relative of the subject of the article, didn't involve the subject themselves in any way, and it was sourced to a tabloid newspaper - inappropriate content, dubious source, BLP violations... the IP was doing exactly the right thing by removing it. Yes, they should have used edit summaries, but that just showed that they were unfamiliar with editing, not that they were wrong to remove it. Very embarrassing all round.

So yeah - if someone is removing a large chunk of text, make sure it actually belongs in the article before reinstating it. Right, let's move on to actually reverting some vandalism. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Example reverts

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	Not relevant content, warned before, issued level 2 warning	Y Yes, that was totally irrelevant to the page, and the IP was making some other very odd edits.
2	diff	Replaced content with gibberish, issued level 1 warning	Y Yes - I don't know what that meant, but it wasn't a plausible test edit.
3	diff	User has a history of such nonsense edits, issued level 3 warning	Y The account is now blocked as a VOA.
4	diff	User has a history of such nonsense edits, issued level 4 warning	Y Same account as the previous one, definite VOA.
5	diff	IP has a history of disruptive edits, replaced with gibberish. Issued level 3 warning	Y Definite vandalism; the IP is now subject to an exceedingly long IP block.
6	diff	Unexplained removal of random content, issued level 1 warning	Y I'd have given a 'removal of content' warning rather than a vandalism one - remember, choosing the right type of warning is important, because it gives targeted links based on what they've actually done. The 'vandalism' one is very generic.
7	diff	Added some random gibberish, level 1 warning issued	Y Very strange - hard to think that they did that in good faith.
8	diff	Random content was removed and replaced with "nude", level 1 warning issued	Y Definitely a good revert. It's a bit of a strange one that; they didn't replace that text with the word 'Nude', rather, they deleted a bunch of text following the letter 'N' (as in north), and the end of the word 'latitude' - leaving only the 'N' and the 'ude'. Could plausibly have been an accident, but more likely to be an unusually inventive form of vandalism.
9	diff	Subtle vandalism, replaced content of the article with the complete oppossite. Level 1 warning issued	Y Clear case.
10	diff	Potential vandalism but also a potentially suicidial user so I reported to the emergency user via email and didn't warn	Y Good call - we would normally cover threats of harm, including self-harm, later in the course, but it looks like you've got that covered already.

@Girth Summit: Done Eyebeller (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Very good Eyebeller - I agree with all of that, just a couple of comments/things to think about. I'm satisfied that you know what you're doing with reverting and warning - let's take a look at rollback.

Sorry, forgot to sign GirthSummit _(blether) 11:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Rollback

In light of your recent contributions, I believe that you can be trusted to use the rollback permission sensibly, 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.

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.
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:

Rollback can be used to revert vandalism, edits in your own userspace, accidental edits you made, edits by a blocked user or widespread edits - for example from a misfunctional bot as long as you leave an explanation somewhere. Basically anywhere where an edit summary is not needed. However, if rollback is used with a tool that adds an edit summary, such as Huggle, it can be used when reverting anything. e.g. unsourced addition of content
If you rollback accidentally, you can undo your edit with an edit summary saying you rolled back by accident
If you're not using a tool, you shouldn't use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary. However, if you're using a tool like Huggle which leaves edit summaries when using rollback, it's fine

Eyebeller (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eyebeller, these answers are mostly correct, but I'd like to just go over the point about using Huggle. Huggle leaves an automated edit summary - usually something like 'Reverted edits by AccountName'. That is essentially the same as using no edit summary at all - in other words, it has to be blatantly obvious why you are reverting to any good faith editor. If you see something you're not happy with in Huggle, but think that someone would need an edit summary to understand why you reverted, don't do it with Huggle - there's a button to open the diff in a browser window, do that and revert manually, leaving an edit summary. I do see a lot of Huggle users not doing that, but it's best practice, and will help you avoid getting into hot water if someone complains.

Please confirm you understand this point, and I'll enable rollback on your account. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Yes, I understand. If it's not obvious why you're reverting, e.g. it's not obvious vandalism, open up a browser and revert with Twinkle instead using an edit summary. Thanks for the information. Eyebeller (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

{u|Eyebeller}} OK, thanks - I've enabled the rollback permission on your account. Would you like to proceed with the rest of the course? It covers things like requesting page protection, speedy deletions, usernames, requesting revdel and things like that. If you were just wanting to get rollback we can leave it here, but if you want to keep going I can do that for you. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 11:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Eyebeller Groan, fix ping... GirthSummit _(blether) 11:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Thanks for enabling rollback. I think it would be nice to finish the course since I already started it. Thanks. Eyebeller (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

OK Eyebeller - see below... GirthSummit _(blether) 13:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion

Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only an administrator can protect or delete pages; however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion or request protection. You can use the Twinkle menu to request page protection or speedy deletion (the RPP or CSD options).

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

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).

@Girth Summit:

A page should be semi-protected when there is a significant amount of vandalism or disruption form multiple different users. Semi-protection prevents IP's and non-autoconfirmed users from editing a page
Pending changes protection is to prevent disruption while allowing all users to submit non-problematic edits. These suggestions aren't visible to users who aren't logged in. The restriction that your edits need to be reviewed only applies to users who aren't autoconfirmed unless there are unreviewed pending changes. You need the reviewer user group to review pending changes
A page should be fully protected when only Administrator's should be able to edit and any anyone else editing it could cause significant harm to the encylopeida. For example, the main page
A page should be creation protected when it has been deleted and has often been recreated
A user talk page is rarely protected but it may be protected if there is severe vandalism or abuse
I'm not sure if this counts since I did it before the assignment, but I requested page protection of Matt Hancock due to persistent disruption and vandalism. My request was approved and the page was semi-protected.

Eyebeller (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that counts fine. Just a couple of comments to make in addition of what you've put.

Full protection is typically used to stop edit wars between experienced users (who really ought to know better). If a bunch of people are reverting, adding full protection is probably more constructive than just blocking everyone who got caught up in it - that forces them to use the talk page and try to arrive at consensus. It's not something you'd ask for to prevent vandalism - semi is or pending changes is usually enough for that.
The question was really about article talk pages rather than user talk pages, but your point holds true - it's rarely necessary to protect them, since vandals don't usually bother with talk pages. It's more often about harassment - some folk get targeted because they've pissed someone off, and so protection is occasionally necessary. We'll cover stuff like that later in the course.

Right, I'm happy that you know how to ask for page protection (and I see you did it with Twinkle - good move, that's much easier than trying to do it manually), so we'll move onto speedy deletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In general terms, under what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted? (Don't list all the criteria - explain why speedy deletion is a thing)

@Girth Summit: Speedy deletion is specific cases where Administrator's can delete pages without any discussion. To usually delete pages, there'd be a discussion about the deletion. However, under the Criteria For Speedy Deletion, this discussion can be skipped and pages can be deleted immediately. Eyebeller (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes - crucially, they are for articles and user pages that should obviously be deleted, and where nobody is likely to disagree except, perhaps, the author. Obvious vandalism (a page entitled 'Fuck Wikipedia', whose content was just a bunch of expletives), attack pages (John Smith is a total asshole), obvious advertising (Acme Bike Locks is a company based out of Chicago manufacturing the best bike locks in the US today, check out their website...), copyright violations, that sort of thing. There are a bunch of criteria, as you will see at the page linked to above, some of which can only be applied in different spaces - the A prefix denotes that it is only for articles (so you can't delete a draft article because you suspect it's an A7), U is for userspace violations, but the 'G' prefix indicates a criterion that can be used anywhere. G11 (promo) and G12 (copyvio) are probably the ones I use most frequently. Let's take a look at some examples... GirthSummit _(blether) 12:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion examples

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 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:

Scenario 1 - Speedy deletion under G10 at the least. The page harasses John Smith and I doubt anyway that a teacher should have a whole page for themselves
Y Yes, this is an attack page. If the information was less negative it would be an A7 - you're right, being a teacher would not amount to a WP:SIGNIF claim.
Scenario 2 - Speedy deletion under G11 and an immediate block under the username policy due to a promotional account and username
Y Yes, this is advertising. G11 the article, and report the username to UAA (more on this later...)
Scenario 3 - Add a BLP unsourced template to the article and it should be deleted
Y Well, the BLP unsourced template wouldn't be out of place, but you haven't indicated how you would flag it for deletion. You've got two options here. A WP:BLPPROD could be applied, which gives the author a week to add some reliable sourcing otherwise it will be deleted; more probably in this instance, I would have gone for an A7. Starring in school plays, producing albums on a self-publishing platform - these aren't SIGNIF claims, so it boils down to having 5,000 subs on YouTube - that isn't really a signif either.
Scenario 4 - That same Bazz Ward seems to be mentioned in The Nice, you could redirect there
Well done - a redirect is often better than a pure delete, especially for subjects like this who probably aren't notable but who have been involved with notable groups and are mentioned in those articles.
Scenario 5 - Speedy deletion under G12. If it didn't say "All Rights Reserved", still a G12 unless it has a suitable license
Y Yes - we assume stuff is copyrighted unless there is a clear statement about licensing, and even then it usually requires some form of attribution.
Scenario 6 - Speedy deletion under A2 if the article exists on another Wikimedia project. If not, add the not english template for translation. Also worth doing a rough translation to make sure it's not some nonsense or spam before adding the not english template
Y Yes - chuck some of the text into Google translate to see whether it's spam or vandalism, otherwise tag and move on.
Scenario 7 - Speedy deletion under G7, can be taken as a author requests deletion request
Y Yep
Scenario 8 - Nothing if it's on a user page, G1 if it's mainspace
Y Yes - G1 technically applies to all spaces, so can be applied in userspace, but if someone wants to have gibberish on their userpage they're not doing any harm.

Eyebeller (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Very good work on these Eyebeller. Next short section is below... GirthSummit _(blether) 17:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Revision Deletion and Oversight

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?

@Girth Summit:

You can request RevisionDelete by contacting one of the Administrator's listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests (for some reason I can't link that) or using the #wikipedia-en-revdel IRC channel
You can request Suppression by emailing the Oversight team, or contact an Oversighter directly in a non-public space such as privately on IRC

Eyebeller (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, things have been manic IRL. The above is correct. Before my RfA, I found IRC the quickest way to get someone to look at a RevDel request, and it has the added benefit of being much more private - the talk pages of admins often have a lot of watchers, so posting there can draw unwanted attention to a diff.

The same goes for oversight, although there's not always an oversighter online on IRC in which case revert to e-mail. If you go to IRC for an oversight request, don't post the diff, just type !oversight and if anyone's available they'll ask you to private message them.

Next step below... GirthSummit _(blether) 11:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Usernames

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.

@Girth Summit:

BGates - Not clear impersonation by the username alone since the users actual name can be Bob Gates or something like that. But if their edits show impersonation, then report them to UAA
LMedicalCentre - If they make no edits, I would leave it. If their edits are promotional, report to UAA. If their edits are good faith edits, leave a Uw-coi-username template on their talk page
G1rth Summ1t - Impersonation, report to UAA
JoeAtBurgerKing - Seems fine to me
JoeTheSysop - Misleading as the user won't be a sysop when they create an account, report to UAA
D0naldTrump - Impersonation, report to UAA
FuckAllYouAssholes - Rude and disruptive, report to UAA
😜 - Seems like a no emoji violation, maybe leave a Uw-username template with a reason parameter stating that emojis in usernames are not allowed

I know real life can get hectic sometimes, I've been quite busy recently too; thanks for carrying on the course with me though. Eyebeller (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This is all good; you're right, the no emoji rules don't call for a UAA report, if it bothered anyone they would need to go to WP:RFCN, but a template or personal note directing them to the policy would be appropriate. Not too much left now... GirthSummit _(blether) 17:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Emergencies

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?

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)?

@Girth Summit:

1 - Email the Wikimedia Foundation using Special:EmailUser/Emergency, including the diff of the threat
2 - Follow the same procedure, better safe than sorry

Eyebeller (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Eyebeller Again with the apologies - work is hectic, not getting much time for anything apart at the weekends. Yes, this is correct - better safe than sorry indeed. The next section is the last one before the final exam... GirthSummit _(blether) 17:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users

Occasionally, some vandals will not appreciate your good work and try to harass or troll you. In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, you should not engage with them and leave a note at WP:ANI. If they vandalise your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. Please read WP:DENY.

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

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.)

@Girth Summit:

The trolls and the vandals want attention, if you feed them they are getting what they want and are more likely to continue
I think one of the main ways of judging is looking at the users other contributions. If most of their edits are vandalism and they have triggered a lot of edit filters for the wrong reasons and may have even asked other users why they reverted their edits they are not a good faith user. But if their other contributions are helpful, they may honestly be curious and want to learn. They may also apologise for their edit which is something trolls wouldn't usually do

Eyebeller (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

These are good answers Eyebeller. One thing that a lot of people think is that if someone is rude and abusive on your talk, they're probably a troll. Actually, politeness/rudeness isn't a good indicator - a good faith user might be genuinely pissed off if you revert them, and people don't always act optimally when they're angry. Your approach is correct - look at their other contributions, also go back and take a look at the revert you edited - is it possible that they might be good faith? If so, engage politely and professionally. Ignore any rudeness, and explain your revert - or, if you decide your revert was a mistake, apologise and self-revert back to their version if they haven't already done so. If you decide there's no way they're good faith, then don't engage - just report to AIV.

OK, that's about it for this course - I've put the final exam below. There's no rush to complete it - go through at your own pace and ping me when you're done. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Final Exam

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

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?
A user inserts '###################################' into an article, having never edited before. Would you treat it differently if they had done the same thing once before?
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?
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?
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?

Part 2

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

Part 3

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.
NCPP Delivery gives fast, efficient delivery service - go to npcc.com for more info!
Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
The Island of Orkvanderland is an island three hundred miles off the coast of Western Australia, inhabited by orks.
Terry is the a great singer.
Fuck all you assholes!

Part 4

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
Poopsniffer
StopVandalBot
Joshtheadmin
poiuytrewassdfhukjhgffghjghhkhgfhdrhjjv9876543
GeoffBarnes
JeffBridgesFan

Part 5

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)?
Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
Where and how should an edit war be reported?
Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?

Part 1

If it's the users first edit, they can be confused with Wikipedia in general. Issue a Uw-test1 template for the first time. If the user continues this, escalate the warnings accordingly. I would probably change to Uw-vandalism3 after the third warning/occurence. Report to AIV after the fourth warning and if disruption persists
Y
Also a possible editing test, may be testing the editing interface. As before: Issue a Uw-test1 template for the first time. If the user continues this, escalate the warnings accordingly. I would probably change to Uw-vandalism3 after the third warning/occurence. Report to AIV after the fourth warning and if disruption persists
Y
Could be good faith, possible removal of unsourced or irrelevant material. If no edit summary is given, use Uw-delete1. If the unexplained content removal persists after multiple warnings, escalate to vandalism warnings and possibly AIV
Y (I'm going to assume from your first sentence that you would not revert if the material was unsourced or irrelevant.)
Issue a level 2 warning, then escalate to ANI if the behaviour continues
N The articlesig user warning is a single-issue warning - it doesn't have a level 2. If they've already been warned about it, you could treat as a test edit so give an escalated test edit warning, ideally with a personal message telling them that adding signatures to an article isn't helpful. Alternatively, you could try to talk to them about it without using a templated warning. Ultimately though, whichever path you choose, if they keep on doing it you could report to AIV if that's all they're doing, or to ANI if you get the impression that they're incompetent rather than a vandal.
I'd check the sources myself as Wikipedia has strict policies on BLP's being sourced with verifiable sources. If I find the content adequately sourced, I'd launch a discussion on their talk page. If they ignore the discussion initiation and continue removing adequately sourced content, go to ANI
Y

Part 2

Uw-blank1 (the level varies)
Y
Uw-delete1 (the level varies)
Y
Uw-test1 (the level varies, if the behaviour continues after multiple warnings change to vandalism warnings)
Y
Uw-npov1 (the level varies, if the behaviour continues after multiple warnings change to vandalism warnings)
Y
Uw-attempt1 (the level varies)
Y
Uw-vandalism1 (the level varies)
Y
Uw-blog1 (the level varies, if the behaviour continues after multiple warnings change to vandalism warnings)
Y
Unusual that a users first edit was one trying to harras me, possibly look for links with other users who have vandalised my user pages recently and launch a SPI. Else, a Uw-harrass3 warning, go to ANI if it continues
Y
Uw-delete4im
Y
Report to AIV
Y

Part 3

A7
Y
G11
Y
A1
Y
G3
Y
A7
Y
G3
Y

Part 4

Leave them alone unless their edits prove they are a promotional account
Y
Probably a vandalism account, if so follow standard procedure. If not, leave it
Y Good answer - it's juvenile and silly, but not offensive enough to report just for that. I too would expect this to be a vandalism account, so would monitor their first few edits.
Violates misleading username, not a bot. Report to UAA
Y
Same as before: Violates misleading username, not an admin. Report to UAA
Y
Probably a vandalism account, not enough to report on it's own as per confusing usernames
Y
Fine
Y
Fine
Y

Part 5

According to the 3 revert rule exemptions, obvious vandalism is exempt from the edit warring policy. If the vandalism isn't obvious, it's better to leave it and get someone else to check to avoid trouble for yourself
Y
AIV
Y
ANI where you can give more details
Y
UAA
Y
ANI
Y
AN3
Y
BLPN
Y

I think I'm done Girth Summit. If I missed anything let me know. Thanks Eyebeller (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

For the final time - apologies for the slow response! Good job, you've passed the test with flying colours. I'm about to head into a Zoom meeting, so will finish off the paper work shortly, but congratulations - you are a CVUA graduate. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Completion

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!

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.

GirthSummit _(blether) 17:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)