User:Girth Summit/CVUA/Horst Hof

Hello Horst Hof, 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.

The start

Twinkle

Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.

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

Done! Horst Hof (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:, Done! Horst Hof (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2019 (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. It is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labelling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.

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

​I would define vandalism those edits made with the aim of intentionally disrupting the project. I would define good faith edits those edits that do not improve an article (or even deteriorate it) but that appear unintentional or due to lack of experience. Horst Hof (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Y ​ Good - you are right, the difference is the intention. Vandalism is done with the intention of causing disruption; edits that are done with the intention of improving the project aren't vandalism, even if they are wrong-headed or disruptive. We revert misguided good faith edits of course, but it's important that we don't label them as vandalism - that kind of hostility drives people away who may have been able to learn to contribute more constructively. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. You don't need to revert the examples you find if you're not certain, and I am happy for you to use previous undos in your edit history if you wish. Present the diffs below.

​My answer here below:

Good faith edits

• Special:Diff/881102324 - Comment: When I met this edit, at a first glance I thought it was a vandalic: an anon user made a change to a name of a french general, this resulted in a blue link turning in a red link and I considered that suspect. I undid it but didn't warn because I was not sure. The anon user then restored its edit and before reverting again I checked on the french version of that article but found no mention of that general. Finally I tried to search for the name of the new general and found that it existed and lived in the period of the battle as well as the old one. I kept the new name as good and corrected the red link accordingly. I still don't know if the change is correct or not, but I would not consider it as a vandalic edit.

OK, so this was a complicated one. I agree with you that the blue link turning red is a bit of a red flag - that often, but not always, indicates a dodgy edit. Looking at the french version of the article was one way to check whether this is true; a better approach, when the assertion has a cited source, is to check the source. I had a look on Google books, and found that 'Dejean' was mentioned several times, whereas there were not mentions of a 'Digeon' in the whole book. I've reverted back to the last version before this interaction now, and with an edit summary asking for additional sources if the assertion isn't correct.

As for whether or not it is vandalism, I'd say it's too early to tell, but it's probably not. My guess is that this is someone who thinks they are right (and they might well be right), adding what they believe to be correct; however, there are people out there who try to introduce inaccuracies that will fly under the radar. If they continue to change it back to their preferred version without communicating or providing a source, we would probably deal with it as disruptive editing/edit warring - the correct route is to start a talk page discussion, attempt dispute resolution, but ultimately if they won't engage they'll be blocked for disruption.

• Special:Diff/880914059 - Comment: In this case the anon user changed the current team of the baseball player without providing sources. I searched the internet and found that actually he was about to be transferred but I found no news that confirm the transfer was concluded. I reverted the edit, commented "not yet" and didn't warn the anon.

Correct - this isn't vandalism, it's just a bit too early to add the information if sources don't indicate that the move has happened yet. You could still have left a level 1 template on the user's talk page about adding unsourced content - that's a bit of a judgment call, I agree that in this case it's probably not warranted.

• Special:Diff/879007050 - Comment: In this case I considered the edit as a test. Actually the IP got blocked three days later for a different type of disruptions. It is not clear if it is the same person behind.

I agree that on the face of it, this looks like a test edit - I would have performed a good faith revert, with an edit summary of 'revert test edit', and then left a test editing warning on the IP's talk page - level 1 if it was the first time, but escalating if they'd already been warning. If the IP already has a recent level 4 warning, you should report to AIV. Even if we believe it's just good faith edits, doing lots of them is disruptive and needs to be stopped.

Vandalic edits

• Special:Diff/881236080 - Comment: In this case the intention of disrupting is clear, personal data has been changed with nonsensical content. I reverted and warned.

Good - I agree, the text they inserted isn't something I can reasonably believe someone thought was true. Revert and level 1 warning was the right response.

• Special:Diff/881098595 - Comment: birth date changed randomly even against what mentioned sources states.

Yes, there's not way that date of birth could be correct. This might be different if they had changed it to 1968 - even if it contradicts what the source says, that might be what someone genuinely believes, so a good faith revert and adding unsourced material warning would have been correct; however, changing the date to 1996 is totally implausible, so I agree this is probably vandalism.

• Special:Diff/880957876 - Comment: In this case the anon user changed a legitimate link with a personal unrelated blog. This is clearly intentional and disruptive.

Yes - you'll see a lot of that, people changing legitimate links to sources so that they point to another location. Reverting and warning is the right course of action, and it's usually a good idea to check their contribution history to see whether they have inserted the same link in other pages.

I noted that you gave the user a second vandalism warning, after they had removed your first warning and inserted the same link to their blog. Just to make sure you are aware, users are allowed to remove vandalism warnings from their talk page - that is often seen as an acknowledgment that they have read it. I assume your second warning was not for that, but for the insertion of the link to their blog? A better warning template for that might have been the 'Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion' one, a bit further down the Twinkle menu. I'd still have given a level two, but making the warnings more specific help make it clear what they are doing wrong.

Horst Hof (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

A note about Twinkle

Try to use either the green, blue, or red "rollback" links if you can, since they save a more relevant edit summary

I noticed that in the 'good faith' reverts you did above, your edit summaries didn't note that these were good faith reverts (and two of them didn't give any explanation for the revert). You'll notice that if you examine the diff of the most recent change to a page, Twinkle will provide you with green, blue, and red "rollback" links. See the screenshot. All three will revert all of the most recent consecutive edits made by a single user to a page.

Try to use these buttons where possible, since these links will save a more relevant edit summary (except the red one, which immediately reverts the edit, saving a generic edit summary – use that for obvious vandalism and other edits for which the reason for reverting is immediately clear). For example, if you use the green "AGF" rollback button, it will note in the edit summary that you thought the edit was good faith. Ideally, you should add in a brief description of what you thought the problem was too (not everyone does this, but it is good practice). All three will also identify the username/IP of the edit you are reverting, so it's clear to other patrollers. Use the brown "restore this version" button when you need to revert edits by multiple users. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:55, 1 February 2019 (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

Why do we warn users?

Warnings are used to inform the editor that his/her action was somewhat incorrect. In case of good faith edits, the warning may have a function of guidance for a better editing experience. In case of bad faith edits, the aim is to dissuade the user to further disrupt the project.

Y This is correct, but there are other reasons. The warnings also help let other editors know that this is a serially problematic editor (it's often a good idea to check the talk page histories, to see whether warnings are being removed). The escalating warning levels also demonstrate clearly to admins that the user has been warned sufficient times, should it be necessary to go to AIV.

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

In case of rapid and massive blatant disruptive action.

Y This is correct - if someone has been doing a lot of vandalism very quickly, and you are the first person to respond, a 4im warning is appropriate; also, if their vandalism is extremely serious, such as accusing a BLP of specific crimes, 4im is appropriate (and you should also ask for WP:REVDEL in these cases, which we will cover later).

Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?

No, I usually add my warnings below the last message. If the user already received warnings by other users few time earlier, I add my warning to the same section, otherwise I open a new section indicating current month and year and place my warning there.

N ​Go back and read the link in the question, then have another go at this one. (I had never heard of substitution when I did this course, so don't feel bad about not knowing about it!)

​Oh, I completely misunderstood the question then. The answer then is yes, in this way the text I post will not change when the template I used will be modified in the future. Actually I always utilised subst without knowing what this is for. Horst Hof (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Y ​Correct. If you're using Twinkle to add the warning, or copying/pasting from this page, then it's not something you need to worry about - it's done automatically. Worth knowing why it's there though! I'll add the next round of tasks/questions tomorrow morning. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks and cheers. Horst Hof (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?

I go to WP:AIV and leave a message there briefly explaining the reasons why I think that a disruption is in course.

Y Correct. Twinkle is good for this - navigate to the user's talk page, and use Twinkle's ARV option to create a report at AIV. There's no need to issue another warning in this case - if they have recently had a level 4/4im, and have vandalised again, just revert and report - the warnings aren't working. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

​Horst Hof (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Also try to include at least two good faith test edits, and at least two appropriate reports to AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below.

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff	Trainer's Comment
1	Special:Diff/881702517	warned using subst:uw-vandalism1 as it is the first disrupting edit of this user. Obviously not a good faith edit.	Y Good
2	Special:Diff/881703448	warned using subst:uw-vandalism2 as this user had already been warned by ClueBot NG. I assessed this as bad faith edit as repeatedly modified the name and brithname changing it randomly.	Y Agree with your reasoning. If it had just been one change, I would assume good faith, but since they have changed it multiple times to various different things, I agree that it's likely vandalism.
3	Special:Diff/881711644	warned using subst:uw-vandalism1	Y
4	Special:Diff/881712815	warned using subst:uw-vandalism1	Y
5	Special:Diff/881718832	warned using subst:uw-disruptive1. I considered this as good faith edit as it was the first disruption and that user may be unaware of the year of foundation of the USSR.	Y Definitely agree about the good faith revert - it was factually incorrect, so needed to be reverted, and I agree that it's not obvious vandalism. I'm not sure that I would have given a warning for this one - it's only contribution, so not very disruptive. A 'test edit' warning might have been more appropriate, but in truth I'd probably just have left a note in the edit summary along the line of '1922 was correct, see WP:USSR'. If they had reinstated their change, or had been doing the same at other pages, then a 'disruptive' warning would definitely have been appropriate.
6	Special:Diff/879139253 Special:Diff/881734640	Reverted twice, and the same did Shellwood. After the level 4 warning I reported it to WP:AIV, see: Special:Diff/881735054.	Y Good response - I see they've been blocked. You'll see a lot of Shellwood - he's very active on Huggle, I've lot count of the number of times I've reviewed a diff, gone to revert it, and been beaten to it by him.
7	Special:Diff/881736131	warned using subst:uw-vandalism1. The adding was totally unrelated to the article, thus I assessed it as a bad faith edit.	Y Yes, I'd agree with that - it's unrelated to the article content, and adding 'Do you want her pics?' is downright creepy.
8	Special:Diff/881893626	Newly created user that replaced one of the present reference links with that of an unrelated personal blog. Revereted, added a note in the edit summary and warned using subst:uw-spam1. Warned again with subst:uw-spam2 as the same user reinstated the same link after my first warning.	Y Good response. When this kind of thing happens, make sure you check the user's contributions, as they may be trying to insert the same link on lots of pages. I expect you know how to do this, but just in case - when you're on their user talk page, if you look at the left of the screen, you'll see 'User contributions' under 'Tools' - click that to check what they've been up to.
9	Special:Diff/881905286 Special:Diff/881905838	By the first edit this user entirely removed the infobox and changed the word "success" with "fail". I warned using subst:uw-vandalism1, but I was not absolutely sure of my choice, a test by part of an unexperienced editor was also possible. I opted for the vandalic edit because they removed the entire infobox and not only part of it, this made me think that they know what they were doing. In the second edit he stated in the edit summary that they "changed the dates they were wrong", but actually they also changed again the word "success" with "fail". I checked the document provided as reference #1 but found no mention to the year. What's more Simon Jenko, who wrote the lyrics of the anthem, was thirteen in 1848, this make that date unlikely. Then I warned with subst:uw-vandalism2.	Y You were right to treat this as vandalism - the deceptive edit summary tipped the balance for me. I can believe a test edit where they have random characters as the edit summary; I can believe a test edit where they have a blank edit summary, or even a 'canned' edit summary, but when someone actually types 'Nothing, I promise', then deletes the infobox - that's vandalism.
10	Special:Diff/881902292	This almost newly created user apparently tried to insert an image but actually he/she only added a series of unintelligible characters. The edit summary he/she left is consistent with what he/she tried to do. Unfortunately this resulted in a disruption of the infobox. I assessed this as a good-faith edit and warned accordingly. A few hours later, that user contacted me on my talk page asking clarifications. I replied by stoling an excerpt of sentence I read on your talk page and directed him/her to WP:FUW. If I have to pay for the copyright, please tell me... ;-)	Y Very good. I agree that this is likely a good faith attempt to add an image that went badly wrong. Your communication with them was good - pinging them, giving them a link to see what they'd done, and directing to the right place to learn about uploading images. The only thing I'd have done differently would have been to flag up the copyright issues in the personal message on the talk page. There is a link to copyright policy on the page you sent them to, but just to be on the safe side I'd probably have just mentioned 'Be sure to follow the link to our copyright guidelines' or similar. Excellent response though. GirthSummit (blether) 09:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
11	Special:Diff/882020051	​A newcomer added some content that seemed to me of very doubtful plausibility and provided no source for that. I reverted assuming good faith and warned using uw-unsourced1. After that the same user reinstated his/her edit twice and I escalated the warning level accordingly always using the unsourced template. I also replied to a short message he/she left on his/her userpage, suggesting to add content only if concurrently providing reliable sources that confirm the adding and directed him/her to the related help pages. Follow up: the user added the same content again. This time he provided some sources that appeared to me to be completely unrelated to the article. I left a final warning. If the edit will be reinstated once again, I would report that user to WP:AIV but I would prefer to wait your opinion before.	Y This is slightly more complicated territory. If someone puts unsourced content into a regular article, you have to be careful to avoid getting into what is effectively an edit war over a content dispute. Review the content carefully, and consider looking for a source yourself before you cross WP:3RR. However, in this case, we are dealing with a WP:BLP, and the content is almost certainly nonsensical. There are specific exceptions from 3RR for unsourced BLP contributions, so you would be OK to continue reverting, and reporting to AIV, if the sources they added do not support the assertions being made. (I noted that the user reinstated their edit again, so have reverted them myself and put a note on their talk page about WP:RS. If they reinstate it again, go ahead and report to AIV.) Update - user has been indefinitely blocked. The threat to continue edit warring, and the personal attack on his talk page, did not help his case. That escalated quickly...
12	Special:Diff/882032055 Special:Diff/882032346 Special:Diff/882032548 Special:Diff/882032712	Undoubtedly vandalic account. Warned escalating the level from #1 to #4. Reported to WP:AIV after last warning.	Y Agreed - straightforward timewasting vandalism, dealt with appropriately.
13	Special:Diff/882054396	I checked the internet for confirmation before reverting and even if I'm almost sure that this is an intentional disruption, I preferred to assume good faith and treat it accordingly. I warned the editor using uw-disruption1.	Y Hmm. Good that you checked, and that you reverted when you found that the edit was factually wrong; I'm not sure I'd have issued a warning though. Son of Batman is a film, Alan Tudyk is an actor - it's perfectly possible that the IP editor thought that he'd been in it, and that 'Son of a barman' was just a typo. The IP hasn't made any other contributions, so with just this edit to go on, I would have done a green Twinkle good faith revert, noted that the film was indeed called 'Son of a barman', and left it at that - no warning unless they try to reinstate the edit.
14	Special:Diff/882172659	At first I've seen a change in the birth date and wanted to check if the new date was good. I searched the internet and found that the old date was the good one (see this). I was about of rollbacking assuming good faith but a new edit occurred (this one: Special:Diff/882172491) in the meantime and this made me change my mind as I found no way to consider it a good faith edit. If I stumbled upon only one of the two edits (whatever) I treated it as a good faith or test edit, but two in a rapid sequence seem to indicate the intention to disrupt. Reverted 2 edits and warned using subst:uw-vandalism1.	Y Agree with analysis - first edit could easily be good faith error; second one looks like vandalism.
15	Special:Diff/882182857 Special:Diff/882184576 Special:Diff/882186021	Reiterated disruption from an anonymous IP. Warned escalating from level #1 to #4 and, after last warning, reported to WP:AIV (see: Special:Diff/882186172 ).	Y Good - another straightforward timewasting vandal, now blocked.

Please @Girth Summit:, check this Special:Diff/881874159, I reverted this because I considered the linked website a personal blog, am I right? If so, that user added a handful of links to the same blog on various articles. How am I expected to react to this kind of behaviour? Which warning is more appropriate? Horst Hof (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Good question Horst Hof - see what I did to the edit you linked to. Good faith revert - edit summary explaining why you're doing it - warning on talk page for adding inappropriate external links (it's a Twinkle option, down near the bottom). Nice catch. Don't escalate the warning unless they add it after receiving the first warning - just revert any they've added before the warning. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Girth Summit: please have a look at his Special:Diff/882177759, how would you deal with a case like this? It is possible that the purpose of author of the change is to add information about a different subject having the same name, but he didn't change the birth date and this looks to me quite strange. The edit summary says "wrong person". Yet another good opportunity to learn something for me... Cheers, Horst Hof (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, Horst Hof that is a bit unusual. I doesn't look like vandalism to me, and I suspect you're correct - there may be two different people with the same name. If that is the case however, We shouldn't change this article - we should create a new article, and have disambiguation links at the top of each. I would do a good faith revert in this case, noting that this was an unsourced major change to a BLP, and then I'd go to the editor's talk page and rather than giving them a warning, I'd ask what they were doing. If, as you suspect, there are two people of this name, suggest that they create a new page for the other person. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

In case of creating a new article, would you keep the same birth date for both? I can try to search the internet for some information about this dancer and create a new article accordingly, but if I will find no info about that I would stick to your suggestion: good-faith rollback and ask for more info to the editor.

By the way, did you read the last message I left on your talk page? A comment from you would be very appreciated. Cheers. Horst Hof (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear - what I meant was that I would recommend to the new user that they create a new article about the new person - not that you do it yourself! Restore the article to its last stable version, and leave them them to create a new article about the second person.

I'm also sorry I haven't responded to the last comment on my talk page - did read it, I've been meaning to do a bit more digging, just haven't had the time - I'll try to get back to you shortly. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You've done a really good job with the task above - thanks for your detailed explanation of your thinking about each of them. I think we're ready to move onto the next stage, which I will post below shortly. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

​Thanks a lot, I'm trying to do my best, I'm ready for the next step. :-) Horst Hof (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Tools

Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#Tools includes a list of tools and resources for those who want to fight vandalism with a more systematic and efficient approach. In addition to manually going through Special:RecentChanges, there are a large number of tool which assist users in the fight against vandalism. They range from tools which help filter and detect vandalism to tools which will revert, warn and report users. Here are a few.

Twinkle

Twinkle, as you know, is very useful. It provides three types of rollback functions (vandalism, normal and AGF) as well as an easy previous version restore function (for when there are a number of different editors vandalising in a row). Other functions include a full library of speedy deletion functions, and user warnings. It also has a function to propose and nominate pages for deletion, to request page protection to report users to WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:SPI, and other administrative noticeboards.

User creation log

Another strategy I use to find vandalism is to patrol the account creation log. This is located at Special:Log/newusers, and it logs every time a new user account is created on Wikipedia. You'll notice that new accounts with no contributions so far will have a red "contribs" links, whereas new accounts with some contributions will have blue "contribs" links. One great way not only to find vandalism, but welcome new users to Wikipedia is to check the blue contribs links that come in.

STiki

STiki is an application that you download to your computer, and it provides you with diffs which either it or User:ClueBot NG have scored on their possibility of being uncontructive, and you are given the option to revert it as vandalism, revert it assuming good faith, mark it as innocent, or abstain from making a judgment on the diff. In order to use STiki, you need one of the following: (1) the rollback permission, (2) at least 1000 article edits (in the article namespace, not talk/user pages), or (3) special permission via Wikipedia talk:STiki.

Huggle

Huggle is also an application you download to your computer which presents you diffs (orders them on the likelihood of being unconstructive edits and on the editor's recent history) from users not on its whitelist. It allows you to revert vandalism, warn and reports users in one click. The rollback permission is required to use Huggle.

Rollback

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. (It would probably be worth mentioning that you are undergoing the CVUA training, with a link to this page.)

The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced vandalism fighters 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 faster than the Twinkle rollback button, but more importantly, having rollback gives you access to downloadable counter-vandalism software like Huggle mentioned above.

If you're interested, take a look at our rollback guideline at WP:Rollback and feel free to answer the questions below. If you're not interested, feel free to skip this section. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

​Rollback should mainly be used in case of: obvious vandalic edits; in case of you want to revert your own edits; in case of you want to revert edits on your own user page; when removing edits made by a blocked user that is obviously evading a block, in this case it is possible that I will be asked to explain my actions; last less common case, when reverting edits made by a malfunctioning bot.

It should not be used in all those cases in which an explaination of my action is required, as the rollback only leave a generic edit summary. Horst Hof (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Y

Hopefully this will never happen, but it does occasionally. If you accidentally use rollback, what should you do?

I have to manually revert my own edit end leave an edit summary explaining that I accidentally used the rollback button. On the other hand, if I erroneusly used the rollback instead of revert and an explaination of my action is required, I can make a dummy edit and describe my action in the edit summary of this. Horst Hof (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Y

Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?

No, the ordinary rollback button will only leave a generic edit summary. When an edit summary is needed I have to use tools that let me add a description of my action. Horst Hof (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Y All correct. To be honest, I rarely use the rollback function itself, I find the various Twinkle rollbacks more convenient because they take you to the talkpage of the editor directly; the situation where rollback can be useful is on occasions where you have a vandal who is repeatedly reinstating vandalistic edits very quickly, and you've already reported them to AIV - you can go to their contributions page, and use rollback to revert everything they've done with just a few clicks, rather than reviewing each diff one at a time. Obviously, you would only ever consider doing this in totally obvious, egregious situations - I've only had to do it a few times. You also need rollback to use Huggle - is that something you'd be interested in? GirthSummit _(blether) 12:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

​I'm not sure I will use those advanced tools right now because I feel I need to further familiarize whith Twinkle, but I also was considering to ask rollback permissions just in case I will decide to give Huggle a try in the future. Horst Hof (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

​ It's totally up to you. Let's proceed with the training course now just using Twinkle, but let me know if you apply for Rollback rights and I will add a note of support to your application. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:57, 8 February 2019 (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. If you have Twinkle installed, you can use the Twinkle menu to request page protection or speedy deletion (the RPP or CSD options).

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

​A semi-protected page is only editable by confirmed users (4 day old accounts with at least 10 edits). This protection level is therefore applied when an article is mainly object of vandalic edits or edit wars involving anon users and newly created accounts. Horst Hof (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

This protection level allows edition by part of everybody (anon users, newcomers and regular users) but the edits from newcomers and anons become visible only after a reviewer validates their edits. If a regular user makes modifications before a reviewer validates a pending edition, its addings will not be visible either until a reviewer validates the pending edit. This protection level is used when an article is object of a high rate of vandalism coming from anons or newcomers. Biographies of living persons are also usually protected through this protection level when object of frequent vandalism coming from the same class of users. Horst Hof (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Full protected articles are only editable by administrators. Such a measure is taken when the concerned article is object of edit warring or vandalism involving confirmed accounts. Full protection is also applied to critical templates and modules. Horst Hof (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

When an article has been recreated several times after that it has been deleted by admins. If I am right the term "salted" refers to the action of pouring salt in order to make soil become unproductive. Similarly admins use this protection level in order to prevent the article from being recreated. Horst Hof (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Article talk pages and User Talk pages can only be temporarily semi-protected in case of persistent vandalism from anons or newcomers. Horst Hof (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

YGood answers. One thing though that you didn't mention is the difference between the circumstances that call for semi-protection, and for pending changes protection.

• Semi-protection is usually applied temporarily when a particular article is getting a lot of attention from vandals - for example a BLP when the subject is prominent in the news fr some reason.
• Pending changes protection is often applied permanently, for pages which receive lower levels of traffic, but receive a high proportion of vandalism or POV editing - pages about vaccination are often protected like this, for example.

Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

I already asked a page protection once, see here: Special:Diff/881082926. Horst Hof (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Y Good - you already know how to do this then. This is what I would suggest for all those Italian pronunciation issues. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

​Yes, I do know (more or less) when and how to request a page protection, but my question was rather about which version to choose as good when two groups of suckpuppets are conflicting like in that case. As I already said, it seems to me reasonable to keep the version that cites reliable sources (that I checked for confirmation and found consistent with the article) and drop the version that cites no source. Unfortunately no one explicitly said to agree with my point and I don't want to act without consensus or at least some sort of support. I understand that the matter is quite obscure, it is obscure for me too, but I'm able to compare signs, whatever they mean. By the way, the anon user from the already mentioned IP ranges reverted once again the changes you did a few days ago. They are doing this again and again and no one seems to care of that even when warned about the situation. I was thinking to involve some users with good familiarity with this matter and ask them an opinion, but my priority in this moment is my training with you and will take care of that afterwards. I want to catch this opportunity to thank you for the job you are doing with me, you are a wonderful teacher and I feel I'm learning a lot with your help. Thanks again and cheers. Horst Hof (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Mulling this over again, I think the thing to do is to remove the IPA thingies, and then apply for protection. You can note in the request for protection that they were added by a blocked sock, and there is no consensus to keep them, but also that your only interest is in stopping the disruption. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

​That's fine for me, I will do as you suggest and consider this as part of my training course. Thanks and cheers. Horst Hof (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I meant to add in my last comment - I don't think you need to be worried about 'doing the wrong thing' in this situation - even if an admin reviewing the protection request thinks that a different version ought to be protected, by raising it at ANI and discussing it with other users, you have clear evidence that you are acting in good faith and not just trying to protect your preferred version of the page. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

​I made the request as suggested (see: Special:Diff/882366003) and removed the IPA transcription from a couple of articles. Let's see if this approach is accepted. Sorry for bothering you with my doubts and lack of experience. Cheers, Horst Hof (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You're absolutely not bothering me! I'm more than happy to help, everyone has had someone else get them started at one point or another. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

My page semi-protection request has been declined, not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Should I have asked for a different type of protection? Since Octuber 25th, 13 edits have been done on Stefano Ianni (just to take an example) and all of them concerning IPA transcription, five of them from confirmed socks (last four of them from the same group of socks), two of them from IP ranges that are likely connected to the same group of sockpuppets and the remaining 6 by other users that reverted sockpuppet edits. More or less the same happened to a large handful of pages... It's a low intensity action, but it is systematic. Horst Hof (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That's disappointing. I'll try to get some time today to dig around in the history of WP:RPP to read the declining admin's comments, and might discuss it with them further about what they would suggest. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I've read the message you left to the admin that declined the protection request and just want to thank you for that. About this issue I think I will let that alone for the moment. I will try to find a solution to this case after my training course. In any case it has been a good opportunity to learn how these kind of situations are treated by such an experienced user as you are. It has been very instructive even if still not solved. I would have a lot of questions about admins approach to systematic disruptive editing like this seems to be the case, I think I will understand more about that in the future. Horst Hof (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

​In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

Speedy deletion is only possible in all those cases in which a large consensus have been reached to allow administrators to skip the discussion that otherwise is mandatory before deleting a page.

A list of those criteria have been redacted and is available at WP:CSD, but, summarizing, I would mention pages that only contain (and contained in its revision history) nonsensical content, text not in english, vandalism, harassment, obvious hoaxes, copyright violation, promotional pages and unnecessary disambiguation pages.

In all the other cases a deletion discussion process is necessary and to start this process users should file a request at WP:AFD page. Horst Hof (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Good. The criteria that I use most often is G11 - if you look in the New User Log, you will frequently come across accounts created with obviously promotional names, who create an advert on their user pages. Use Twinkle to mark these for CSD as a promotional page under a promotional username. You will also occasionally find attack pages this way too.GirthSummit _(blether) 22:33, 11 February 2019 (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.

I could consider this as a test edit with a goliardic content, but the username seems to indicate a bad intention from the beginning. I would ask speedy deletion based on G3. Horst Hof (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Y G3 would work; you could also consider G10 as an attack page. Note though that we wouldn't consider a defamatory statement about a named individual to be a test edit - if you ever see comments like that about a person, treat them as vandalism rather than test. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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.

Obvious promotional page: style and presence of website and telephone number clearly indicate the intention of promote an activity. The username also is an indication of the promotional intent. My only doubt is: can this article be transformed in an ordinary page with no promotional purposes? If the company object of the article has no enciclopedic interest, then I would ask speedy deletion based on G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, otherwise I could remove website and telephone number and rewrite the text with a more encyclopedic style. Horst Hof (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Y G11 is correct - in Twinkle, you will see under the 'User Page' section the option to choose G11 described as 'Promotional user page under a promotional user page'. This is the one to go for.

To answer your question - even if this wasn't a user page, it would still be a G11. If I saw that on the New Pages Feed, or at WP:AfC, I'd tag it for deletion immediately. Even if I thought we probably ought to have a page about the company, since there's no content there that isn't promotional, there's no point in keeping it. Better to delete it and hope that someone comes along and tries to write a neutral article. See WP:TNT for more discussion of this, if you're interested (it's not necessary for this course). GirthSummit _(blether) 18:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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.

In this case I wouldn't ask speedy deletion as the article doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria. The style is not explicitly promotional and there is no website to promote or whichever other contact. In this case I think a discussion about the encyclopedicity of the subject is more appropriate. Horst Hof (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

N CSD A7 is probably the most subjective of the speedy delete criteria, and so it's not always an easy one to call. In this case, if the subject has only appeared in school plays, has self-published albums on, and a few thousand subscribers on YouTube, then there isn't any credible claim to notability, and so really ought to be nominated for deletion. (Don't feel bad about this one - when I did this course, I gave a pretty similar answer to you!). GirthSummit _(blether) 18:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Scenario 4

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

Bazz Ward was a great 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.)

Thanks a lot for this very interesting question. I've read the discussion on the RfA of Pvmoutside and to be honest at first I would have given more or less the same superficial answer.

The style of the text is not suitable for an encyclopedia and this would have made me think to a goliardic unconstructive edit, but I would have been in difficulty when selecting the criterion to be applied.

After reading that discussion (I spent an hour at least to carefully read and understand the relevant passages) I think that asking speedy deletion based on A7 would be the most appropriate solution. Horst Hof (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Y Good that you did your homework on this! Mz7, who contributed to that discussion, took me through this course. A7 would probably work for this - however, if you Google the name, you ought to find that we have an article about The Nice, in which a roadie called Bazz Ward is mentioned. The best thing to do if you come across a page that needs to go, but where the title is something that we have information about in an article, is to set up a WP:Redirect. Then anyone searching for Bazz Ward will at least find out something about him from that article. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

​Curiously enough, despite that participated discussion, a redirect from Bazz Ward to The Nice has never been done, though. :) Horst Hof (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

​ True - but then we couldn't ask that question in CVUA courses! GirthSummit _(blether) 10:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

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?

When the text comes from a website that clearly states "All Rights Reserved", I would ask speedy deletion based on G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement. Y

On the contrary, if the copyright note is not present, I would follow what stated here, thus I would write a note on that page's discussion page indicating the website where I've seen the same or nearly-same text and tag the page as {{copypaste|url=insert URL here, if known}}. Additionally, I would also leave a note at WP:CP explaining my doubts and providing the link to the website where I suspect the text have been copypasted from. Horst Hof (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Y Your actions wouldn't be wrong here - leaving a note at WP:CP would result in the material being removed, so the right thing would happen in the end. You could save yourself the trouble, however - we assume that material found at other websites is copyrighted, unless there is a positive statement that it is public domain / compatibility licensed. You're OK to nominate for G12 even if the site doesn't say that it's under copyright. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Scenario 6

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

I would stick to what stated at A2. If the article's content is the same as that of a page of another wiki project I would ask speedy deletion based on A2. If the article is not the same as that of another wiki project I would add the template {{Not English}} to the article, and add the page to the list in Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Horst Hof (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Y The only thing I'd add to this would be to suggest grabbing some of the text and putting it into Google Translate. If you find that it's promotional, or an attack page, nominate for deletion accordingly. The admin who deals with it will translate if necessary to see what the problem is.

Scenario 7

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

The introduction of WP:CSD states: if the sole author blanks a page (other than a userspace page or category page), this can be taken as a deletion request, and the blank page tagged for deletion with {{Db-blanked}}. The description of G7 also states more or less the same thus I would ask speedy deletion based on G7. Horst Hof (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Y Good GirthSummit _(blether) 18:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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?

I would do nothing at all. That string of unintelligible text do not represent a problem for the project, it is not self promotion, it is not copyrighted material, it is not a personal attack, harassment, etc...

If the same text was used to create an article or a category page instead, then I would ask for speedy deletion based on G1. Patent nonsense. Horst Hof (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Y Yes - if you want to have nonsense on your userpage, that's up to you! GirthSummit _(blether) 18:09, 12 February 2019 (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 articles above. Revision deletion hides the edit from anyone except admins; oversight is even more serious, even admins can't 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 assume that it is oversight - it will be reviewed by someone who can do either, and they will decide which one to use.

If you believe an edit needs to be revision deleted, how would you request that?

As soon as I find an evident violation of copyright policies I add the template copyvio-revdel to the concerned page; this template will add the page to the category "Requested_RD1_redactions" where an administator will take care of the issue.

As soon as I find insults, offensive material, smears, allegations, harassment, threats, personal attacks or malicious code etc., I will leave a message to one of the administrators listed in the category "wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests" on their talk page or through the wiki mail service or IRC (these last are more appropriate when sensible private information is involved). Horst Hof (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Y

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

Whenever I find information as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of other users or individuals that didn't make their data voluntarily available or other situations listed in at the link you posted above, I can warn the oversight team by mail using the specific form or sending a e-mail to the address stated at WP:RFO. Horst Hof (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Y

Just to add to the good answers you've given above - if the smears are particularly egregious, for example accusing an individual of specific sex crimes or similar, ask for oversight rather than revdel. E-mailing the oversight team is one way of doing it; you can also use the IRC channel, but instead of typing !admin at the start of your message, type !oversight and wait for an oversighter to pm (private message) you. If you don't get a response (there isn't always an oversighter around), then revert to email. In my experience, IRC is the best way to get a fast response 90% of the time, and e-mail is the only other option I use. According to the guidelines you are allowed to put a message on an admin's talk page, but some of them get grumpy about that as it's public and so can in theory attract attention to the edit, so I no longer use that route. Definitely avoid doing is posting it on a high profile public forum like ANI. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:53, 13 February 2019 (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?

I have to send an e-mail to emergencywikimedia.org indicating the page where I've seen the threat. Alternatively I can also use the wikipedia mail service to contact Special:EmailUser/Emergency. I also will send an e-mail to, or contact an administrator using IRC, specifying tha same details as above. It is important to avoid highly visible boards.

After that, requesting an oversight is also a good idea as these posts frequently include personal info that need to be redacted. Horst Hof (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Y GirthSummit _(blether) 16:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

What should you do if an edit looks like a threat of harm, but you suspect it may just be an empty threat (i.e. someone joking around)?

I will react as above in any case as I'm asked to treat all claims seriously and don't underevaluate these kind of situations. Horst Hof (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Y GirthSummit _(blether) 16:15, 13 February 2019 (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). 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, usernames that impersonate other people, 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 particluar 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.

BGates

This username may be confusing and may lead one to think that it is used to impersonate Bill Gates but on the other hand the inital B may stand for other common first names like Barbara, Brian, Bob etc. If no other problematic behaviours are related to this user I would consider this in good faith and would stick to the following advice: If you see a username that is problematic but was not obviously created in bad faith, politely draw the user's attention to this policy, and try to encourage them to create a new account with a different username.

In case of communication didn't prove effective, I would report it to WP:UAA. Horst Hof (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Y Before discussing it with the user, I'd probably look at their contributions. If they are editing heavily on 'Microsoft' or whatever, then it would be worth bringing up with them as potentially misleading; if they're editing in totally unconnected areas, and are doing so constructively, then I'd leave them alone - real names are allowed, and if theirs is Barbara or Bob Gates that's non of our business. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

LMedicalCentre

This username seems to refer to a company active in the medical sector. On the other hand a single letter (L) before MedicalCenter is quite unusual and possibly not enough to identify a specific company. If no other problematic behaviours or promotional edits come from this user I would react as above. Horst Hof (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Y, although I'd look at their contribs quite closely. If they were editing in medical areas of any kind, I'd discuss the name on their talkpage; if they mentioned a medical centre with a name beginning with L in any article, I'd report the username as promotional and implying shared use. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

G1rth Summ1t

Oh, there's someone trying to impersonate my teacher!!! Immediate report to WP:UAA!!! Horst Hof (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Y Yep - impersonating users is a serious offense! GirthSummit _(blether) 14:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

JoeAtBurgerKing

This case perfectly fits with the following passage of WP:ISU: usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", "WidgetFan87", etc., thus that's fine for me. Horst Hof (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Y Although, if they are editing articles about Burger King (or indeed burgers/fast food in general), you might want to consider warning them about COI (there's a template for that at WP:UWARN).GirthSummit _(blether) 14:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

JoeTheSysop

This username is misleading as it tries to appear as a sysop. This kind of cases are covered by WP:MISLEADNAME. I would report it to WP:UAA. Horst Hof (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

YGirthSummit _(blether) 14:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

H0rst Hof

This is probably the same use that tried to impersonate my teacher... I would report it to WP:UAA for the same reasons as above. Horst Hof (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

PS: Actually, if I found the accounts H0rst Hof and G1rth Summ1t created in a few minutes from each other and the subsequent edits overlap, I would consider to report them to WP:SPI as may be checkusers can find other dormant socks. Horst Hof (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

YGirthSummit _(blether) 14:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Mz7isaloser

Quite clearly a case of WP:ATTACKNAME. Report at WP:UAA. Horst Hof (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

YGirthSummit _(blether) 14:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

😜

I didn't ever know that one can technically choose an emoji as username before reading the policy. In any case this is covered by WP:NOEMOJI, thus I would report it ot WP:UAA. Horst Hof (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Y You're right, this is discouraged by WP:NOEMOJI, but we don't report emojis to UAA - it would need to be raised at WP:RFCN, which is probably more of a pain than it's worth for this fairly innocuous emoji. I'd probably ignore it, unless they were causing disruption, in which case I'd report them for that.

These were all good answers, well done. The only thing I'd add is that, while we generally don't report usernames before the account has made any edits, there are a few occasions when I have done so. If a username contains hate speech, obvious racist/homophobic/sexist slurs, or is an obvious attempt to impersonate another user, then I would report it before it has edited. I've only had to do that a few times, but use your judgement and if you are sure, report it. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:51, 14 February 2019 (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?

​Because, as stated at WP:DENY: "denying recognition and infamy neutralizes common primary motivators for vandalism and disruption". In practical terms, recognition is something most of vandals and trolls are looking for and denying that we remove one of the most common motivators they have to reiterate their behaviour, and we also remove a powerful motivator for those that would act for imitational instinct. Horst Hof (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?

Well, I already received a complaint for one of my edits (it's on my talk page) and the first thing I did was checking the edit object of the request and subsequently I briefly answered explaining why I reverted that edit and directed that user to the relevant policy or information page. In that situation, the request was absolutely polite and I was encouraged by this to assume good faith. In any case, writing style is often a first alarm lamp, but not always trolls are recognizable by their style and a clever troll will not unveil him/herself so easily.

A powerful tool is the user's contribution log, that allows to have a quick summary of the behaviour of the user. If a user has a long history of good edits it is very unlikely he's trolling other users.

The user's talk page (and its revision history) is also a good indicator. A newcomer with few edits and a talk page with repeated warnings will not help him to be taken seriously.

In case of an anonymous user with no other edits I can also check it's IP range to verify if it has been frequently used for disruption and trolling, and on which topic. If a similar IP already made disruptive edits on the same or similar topic and/or started troll-like discussions elsewhere I will probably ignore their request.

In any case, even with newcomers or anonymous users, before deciding what to do, I would always check the edit object of the complaint as I want to be sure it was not an error by my part, and in that case I would apologise. Horst Hof (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

These are good answers, Horst Hof. It can be a fine balancing act trying to balance the requirements of WP:DENY and WP:ENGAGE - the key is in trying to judge intent. If the editor's contribution and talk page history makes you believe that they are trying to improve things, however misguidedly, then you are expected to engage in discussion with them; if you think they are trying to waste more of your time, then simply revert, ignore and report as necessary. The only thing I'd add to what you had to say is that you shouldn't necessarily judge too much by how polite they are when they come to your talk page - some good faith editors react pretty badly to being reverted, as they might have spent ages constructing the content that you removed. Contribution history is a better way to judge intent - if they are rude, but you think they are good faith, then stay calm and polite, explain your revert, and hopefully they'll calm down and respond like a grown up. If they persist in rude behaviour, or start harassing you, then by all means report to ANI for WP:NPA. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Rollback permissions

Hi @Girth Summit: I've just requested rollback permnissions. I think I feel confident enough to start using Huggle or at least to give it a try. Cheers, Horst Hof (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Horst Hof, I'm sorry I haven't added the next step the last couple of days, I've been quite busy. I've just endorsed your application for rollback, because I'm convinced that you have a good eye for edits that need to be reverted, and could be trusted to use the permission wisely. Having said that, I just did a bit of checking through your recent contribution history, and while I didn't find any reverts that I disagreed with, I was a bit concerned at the lack of warning messages on users' talkpages. Remember that we don't only warn users for outright vandalism - Twinkle allows you to easily add warnings for test edits, adding inappropriate external links, removal of content, etc. With edits like this, this or this, I'd expect to see a relevant warning from you on the users' talkpage. This is an important part of the countervandalism work, it allows other editors to see easily whether a disruptive user has been warned before, as well as letting the user know that what they are doing is problematic and why - please let me know if you have any questions about which warning would be most appropriate.

Once your rollback rights request has been processed, we'll move onto the next stage. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Girth Summit: first of all I want to thank you for your endorsement to my request. You are right about warnings, but let me explain my rationale about that: sometimes I see that a user has only one edit and I'm not sure whether it is some sort of test edit or what, thus I wait to see if they do a further edit before warning, that's why I occasionally bypass warning. In any case I will be more precise even on that aspect, thanks for this feedback, it is always very useful to have a check one's own actions. Cheers, Horst Hof (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I can see what you're getting at, and I do sometimes revert without a warning myself, depending on the circumstances. Nevertheless, I think you are being a bit too relaxed about this - if someone is inserting promotional links, or deleting content to the extent that a wikilink breaks, then a warning is definitely in order. The level 1 warnings are fairly polite and informative - they welcome while explaining what the user did wrong - I wouldn't worry about using them quite liberally. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

​Ok, I'll keep this in mind! Horst Hof (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Rollback Tools

​ OK - Now that you have rollback enabled, you have access to two new tools that you may find useful.

STiki

STiki is an application that you download to your computer, and it provides you with diffs which either it or User:ClueBot NG have scored on their possibility of being uncontructive, and you are given the option to revert it as vandalism, revert it assuming good faith, mark it as innocent, or abstain from making a judgment on the diff.

Huggle

Huggle is also an application you download to your computer which presents you diffs (orders them on the likelihood of being unconstructive edits and on the editor's recent history) from users not on its whitelist. It allows you to revert vandalism, warn and reports users in one click.

My own entirely personal analysis

What follows is my own take on the three tools (Twinkle, Stiki and Huggle), based entirely on my own experience of them. I'm not going to say which one I think is best - they are all different, and useful in different ways.

Twinkle will always be the easiest to use for a beginner, simply because it is built into your regular web browser, and you use it via the regular Wikipedia interface. You are already familiar with it, so I'll move on for now.

Stiki is a diff browser - that is to say, it does not show you articles, only diffs. It has a queue of diffs that have been classified as potentially problematic - either by its own algorithm, or by Cluebot (you can select which queue you want to look at - the Cluebot one picks up a higher proportion of vandalism in my experience, and it's what I'd recommend). You look at the diff, and have four options for classifying it - Vandalism (which does a rollback, and gives the user a vandalism warning, all in a single click); Good Faith Revert, which will prompt you to select the type of edit summary/warning message you want to give; Innocent, which means don't revert; and Pass, which basically says 'I don't know' - Stiki won't do anything, but the diff will remain in the queue for someone else to look at.

One of the big advantages of Stiki is that the queues go back a long way - I've caught quite serious vandalism (that required revdel) that had been live in an article for six weeks using Stiki - Cluebot has a long memory, and it will eventually serve all dubious edits to a Stiki user for checking - none of the other tools I've used do this quite so well.

Huggle is another diff browser - again, it only shows you diffs, not articles. It's described as a fast diff browser, and it really is that - it serves up edits as they come in, and you can make quick yes/no decisions about whether it's vandalism or not. With a single click or keystroke you can revert and warn the user or move onto the next diff in the queue.

You might have seen from my contributions history that I don't use Huggle a lot. It's a personal thing - certainly if you want to revert a lot of vandalism very quickly, it's the best tool there is. Huggle users are a vital first wall of defense, and they are able to filter out most vandalism within seconds of it happening. Having said that, I find the immediacy of it slightly stressful. You can see the queue of diffs piling up in real time, and you can see other counter vandalism editors reverting them - it all happens very quickly, and it's hard to avoid feeling a certain pressure to act quickly. While you are getting to grips with it, I'd urge you to avoid the temptation to rush. You'll probably be beaten to the revert a lot to begin with, but don't worry about that. What you don't want to do is make hasty decisions, and up making a mistake - remember, we are accountable for our use of rollback, no matter what tool we are using.

This brings me back to Stiki - it only shows each diff to one user at a time, and since most of the edits in the queue are several minutes (even hours, days, weeks) old, you have a bit more time to evaluate them. I personally prefer Stiki for this reason - or indeed good old-fashioned Twinkle/Recent Changes. That's entirely personal though, and you would get a very different opinion from someone like Shellwood (whose work I'm sure you must have come across a few times!).

My personal advice would be to install both Stiki and Huggle, and to start out with Stiki - once you are used to using a diff browser, try Huggle, and get used to that. Then come to your own opinion about which one you like using the most. Just remember the golden rule - be sure before you revert.

Drop me a note if you have any questions about installing or using either Huggle or Stiki - I may be able to help, but if not I can pass you on to someone who can.

With regards to the CVUA training, we've done most of the curriculum now - I'll check through my notes and make sure there's nothing we haven't covered, then (once you've tried Huggle and Stiki out), we'll move onto the final stage - the exam! I'm sure it won't be too difficult for you, it's just a series of questions similar to the ones that you've already answered. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

​I tried installing Stiki but the setup process failed because I am behind a firewall that prevents communication through the port where the software expects to receive data, and I'm not in condition to change that setting.

On the other hand, I also installed Huggle and the setup process was succesfully completed. I opened the application and at first I got quite confused. I've started reading the manual and something now is getting clearer but I'm still feeling not confident enough to make tests as I don't want to cause damages. I browsed through the diffs and found a few disruptive edits but didn't use Huggle to revert them, I used Twinkle as usual instead for that. My approach is mainly very cautious with new tools. I'm going to test it for a while and after taht I will decide if keep on using it or continuing using Twinkle, that's easier and quite effective anyhow. Cheers, Horst Hof (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I see - if your problem with Stiki is the firewall, there's probably not much we can do. Personally, I can't use Stiki or Huggle when I'm at work - I can't even use any 'XTools' stuff, it all gets blocked by our firewall, so I just use those tools at home. If you want to give Stiki another try when you're not behind the firewall, I've always found the developer (Andrew G West - you can find his details on the Stiki page) to be super-responsive to questions, he's really keen to help people use the tool - drop him a question on his talk page and I'm sure he'd get back to you quickly.

Caution is definitely advisable with Huggle! The first time I used it, I managed to revert someone's valid CSD nomination, and template them - I wrote a grovelling apology for that one, I can tell you! Once you work out what each of the windows is for it gradually becomes obvious - reading the documentation is a good idea. Let me know if you have any questions as you go along. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually I could try Stiki in the weekend when I go back home to my parents but, to be honest, I prefer to dedicate my time to my family and real life activities when I'm at home. Horst Hof (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine - Stiki and Huggle are entirely optional, you don't need to use them to complete the CVUA course, and of course you should do whatever you want at the weekend! GirthSummit _(blether) 10:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Horst Hof, I've been through my notes and I believe we've covered everything now. You can continue to ask me any questions you like as you get to grips with Huggle, but with regards to this course I think the only thing left is the final exam - see below. I'm sure you'll be able to answer all these questions without too much trouble - just ping me when you're ready for me to review. Good luck! GirthSummit _(blether) 14:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Final Exam

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).

1. A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article. What would you do if it was their first warning? What about after that.

   If this is their first edit I would consider this a test edit, revert it assuming good faith and warn uw-test1. If they restore it again, I would revert again and escalate to uw-test2 and so on. If they continue even after final warning, I would report to WP:AIV adding a short description of the events.

   Y Yes - looks like a test to me, but if they keep doing it we'd need to stop the disruption. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

2. A user adds their signature to an article after one 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 though I would have to escalate with articlesig but I didn't find a level 2 of this warning message and it seems it didn't exist (I seeked it here: WP:WARN). So I changed my strategy... I would check the contribution history of that account and its talk page, and decide according to what I find there. If it is a newcomer or an anon user, I would leave a message explaining that articles should not be signed and directing them to WP:SIG. If the contributon history and talk page of that user indicated a clear inclination to reiterated disruption, I wouldn't consider that a good faith edit and I would start the escalating series of warnings using uw-disruptive1/2/3/4 and report to WP:AIV if necessary. The same if the newcomer or anon ignored my message and didn't stop adding its signature on articles.

   Y Trying to discuss it with them is a good idea, especially if it's a new user; if they ignore you and continue, then it is disruptive and escalating would be correct. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

3. A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?

   John Smith is the best is a sentence that under any perspective presents some kind of problem. Best for what? Sources? May be it can be considered a good faith edit if the article where it has been added is somewhat related to a John Smith, and in that case a good-faith revert and uw-disruptive1 or uw-unsourced1 may be appropriate. If, on the contrary, the article has apparently nothing to do with a John Smith, I would vandal-revert and warn using uw-vandal1. In both cases I would escalate if they don't stop and after final warning I would report at WP:AIV adding a short description of the situation.

   Y Just what I'd do. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

4. A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?

   This is more or less the same situation of point #1. It is an inoffensive sentence thus I would consider it as a disruptive but good-faith edit, possibly a mere test. I would revert it and I would warn using uw-test1 and I would gradually escalate if necessary. If they continue even after final warning, I would report to WP:AIV adding a short description of the events.

   Y GirthSummit _(blether) 09:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

5. A user removes sourced information from an article, 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 had to face this situation a few times in my wiki-existence. Before following this training course I was reacting to that kind of situations by undoing the edit and adding unexplained removal of sourced content in the edit summary. Now I've become more cautious and I try to understand the context. A significant incident in which I've been involved in recently, occurred a few days ago at Michael Glick, where I think I acted wrongly: I've noticed a user called Micglick removing sourced content on that page, with no comment in the edit summary. I instinctively reverted, but immediately I felt unconfortable with what I did, then I came back to the previous version and carefully read the removed text and checked the sources. I became aware that very likely I made an error but when I reverted my own edit I could only ascertain that the aforementioned user already removed that passage again, this time they also added an edit summary comment mentioning a 'removal of libellous sentence' or something like that. At that point I left that matter alone and passed on. Actually, the similarity of username and edited article had also to suggest a possible conflict of interest but my lack of experience left me hesitating about what to do. In that case may be the situation was a little beyond my current formation. In any case, now I think I would act differently: first of all I would check the entire passage and sources before reverting, and in case I still hesitate I would ask an opinion to a more experienced user. On the other hand, when the sources are reliable and the removed passage is not controversial, I would revert and warn using uw-delete1, escalating if necessary and eventually reporting to WP:AIV in case of reiterated disrupting behaviour.

   Y Good - treading carefully and investigating is necessary. I took a look at the history of Michael Glick, and I see that whatever it was you added back in has now been revdelled - so presumably it was seriously problematic. Don't worry though, the important thing is that you did the right thing and took time to check rather than edit warring to keep it in the article. There is indeed a COI issue at play with the user - he admits here that he is the subject of the article, and his editing history shows that he's never edited any other article; however, whether or not it's COI, if there's poorly sourced defamatory material on a BLP, it has to go and stay gone. I see that another editor has already brought up the COI issue with him, and the page has been protected to prevent further issues with inappropriate additions, so this seems to be sorted out now. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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.

1. A user blanks Cheesecake.

   uw-blank1 and escalate the level according to the situation.

   Y GirthSummit _(blether) 10:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

2. A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.

   At WP:WARN I find this one and that's what I would use: uw-attempt2 (Triggering the abuse filter by attempting to vandalize). But I have a question about this: How can I become aware of the fact that an attempt was made? If they only tried to make the abuse and didn't manage to save the edit because the filter prevented that, do I see it in the recent changes log in any case?

   Y Good question - I realise that I didn't cover this earlier in the course. There's a tool I haven't mentioned before called the edit filter log - some brief details as follows, but it's not something I ever use. Feel free to explore it and see if you find it useful. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit filter log

Special:AbuseLog is the edit filter log. Every time you and everyone else submit an edit to Wikipedia, your edits are checked against hundreds of filters to make sure they aren't disruptive. These filters look for common vandalism patterns (e.g. adding profanity), and if a filter returns a hit, it gets logged in Special:AbuseLog.

In addition to logging, the edit filter can also trigger specific actions; namely, filters can show a warning to the user or even disallow an edit from going through entirely. Even if an edit is disallowed, it is sometimes useful to look at the editor's contributions to see if there was other vandalism not caught by the filter. The template warning series {{subst:uw-attempt2}}, {{subst:uw-attempt3}}, and {{subst:uw-attempt4}} are also useful against edits disallowed by the edit filter (there's no level 1 in this series, for some reason).

1. A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.

   uw-efsummary (Edit summary that triggers abuse filter)

   Y GirthSummit _(blether) 10:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

2. A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.

   Since this happened on an article dedicated to an airport, I have no choice but considering this as a vandalism, thus uw-vandalism1 and escalate the level according to the situation.

   Y absolutely GirthSummit _(blether) 10:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

3. A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.

   If no reason is given in the edit summary and I see no other good reason for that, I would use uw-delete1 (Removal of content without adequate explanation).

Y GirthSummit _(blether) 10:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

1. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

   uw-test1

   Y GirthSummit _(blether) 10:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

2. A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.

   Since the article has nothing to do with a person called Tim and the text added is not harmful I would opt for a uw-test1.

   Y GirthSummit _(blether) 10:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

3. A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.

   uw-biog1 (Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons) seems the most appropriate. Perhaps uw-unsourced1 may also be acceptable.

   Y GirthSummit _(blether) 10:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

4. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.

   After five disruptive edits I feel I can go straight to a uw-delete4im

   Y GirthSummit _(blether) 10:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

5. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.

   No need to warn again, I would report the user at WP:AIV adding a short description of the situation.

   Y GirthSummit _(blether) 10:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

6. A user blanks your userpage and replaced it with 'I hate this user' (you have had a number of problems with this user in the past).

   I think I would warn them using uw-harassx modulating the level according to the severity of the problems they created. If the harassment is reiterated I think I could also file a report at WP:AIV or WP:ANI.

   Y Yes - if you are being harassed, you don't have to put up with it - go straight to AIV, and ANI if it gets complicated (e.g. if they come back with a different IP or whatever). GirthSummit _(blether) 10:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

7. A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.

   I would act differently according with the history of the user. If I'm dealing with an isolated case I would consider this a test edit and would warn using uw-test1. On the contrary, if that user made the same edit on a number of articles I would opt for an image-vandalism case and I would warn using uw-image1, escalating if necessary.

   Y GirthSummit _(blether) 10:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Part 3

What CSD tag you would put on the following articles? (The content below is the article's content).

1. Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!

   G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Db-g11

   Y GirthSummit _(blether) 10:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

   I searched the internet for "Josh Marcus" but none of these is a kid living in London. I also searched the en.wiki just to discard the possibility of a Bazz Ward scenario, but no occurrence appeared for "Josh Marcus". This seems a sort of test edit, but there is a notability issue and I think I would opt for this last: A7. No indication of importance, db-person.

   Y GirthSummit _(blether) 10:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

3. Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !

   Hard to say if I have no indication of the title of the article. If the title refers to a person called Joe Dunnowhat, perhaps we sould behave like the case of Bazz Ward and a CSD request is not the first choice. On the contrary, if the title is simply 'Joe', there is not information enough and a A7 or A1 would be the most appropriate choice.

   Y Either of those would work. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

4. A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.

   I never heard of a Smadoodle but I'm not a naturalist and wanted to be sure thus I searched the internet. It seems that it is an invention, thus A11 (Obviously invented), db-invented.

   YGirthSummit _(blether) 10:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

5. Fuck Wiki!

   G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes, Db-vandalism.

   Y GirthSummit _(blether) 10:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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).

1. TheMainStreetBand

   It seems to suggest a promotional use and/or a shared use, but I would wait to see what they are going to edit and warn accordingly. The options are: Reporting to WP:UAA if their edits are about a band with a similar name or simply leave them a message directing them to the wikipedia username policy: WP:USERNAME.

   Y Those options are both valid. {{subst:uw-coi-username}} is pretty useful if you just want to give them a warning - it includes information about username problems, as well as the COI stuff.

2. Poopbubbles

   I would consider this a "disruptive or offensive username" and treat it accordingly: report at WP:UAA.

   Y This is borderline - it's very slightly offensive, in a childish sort of way. I'm not sure many admins would block on the username alone - however, if they were vandalising as well, you could report them to AIV as a vandalism-only account, noting that their username doesn't exactly inspire confidence. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

3. Brian's Bot

   Misleading username trying to pretend to be a bot. Report at WP:UAA.

   Y GirthSummit _(blether) 10:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

   Confusing username as described at WP:UNCONF. These are discouraged but do not represent a disruption on their own, thus I would wait to see how they behave and decide accordingly. If no other problematic behaviour rises I would leave a message asking to consider the idea to change username and direct them to WP:USERNAME for more information.

   Y GirthSummit _(blether) 10:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

5. Bobsysop

   Misleading, trying to appear an administrator as described at WP:MISLEADNAME. Report at WP:UAA.

   Y GirthSummit _(blether) 10:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

6. 12:12, 23 June 2012

   Misleading, trying to simulate the timestamp of edit logs. This is also describet at WP:MISLEADNAME. Report at WP:UAA.

   Y GirthSummit _(blether) 10:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

7. PMiller

   At a first glance it seems a good username but it depends on what this user will edit. It may be a case similar to that I described above about user Micglick. In that case a COI message on their talk page may be appropriate.

   Y Yes - real names are explicitly permitted, the only potential issue here would be any COI edits. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

8. OfficialJustinBieber

   Misleading username trying to impersonate the Canadian artist. The term 'Official' also seems to refer to the promotional staff of the artist and thus implying a shared use. In any case I would report at WP:UAA.

   Y GirthSummit _(blether) 10:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Part 5

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

1. Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?

   Well, reverting obvious vandalism is not regarded as participating in an edit war, this is clearly stated at WP:3RR as you once told me about the italian IPA issue. Things become more complicated when disputes concern specialistic matters for example and it is not easy to discern between vandalism ond good-faith edits. In general wiki rules are aimed to avoid any possible edit war and if a user stick to rules edit wars are unlikely. politely inviting the other user to a discussion is a first step to clarify the matter. In any case, in ambiguous cases I would behave like I did with italian IPA issue, thus, instead of keep on reverting ambiguous edits, I would ask an opinion to more experienced users and to trusted users that shows familiarity with the matter. The entire process may take longer but will avoid annoying quarrels.

   Y This approach is correct - so long as you are reverting obvious vandalism, you are safe from 3RR restrictions, but it has to be so clearly vandalism that no one could reasonable disagree with your assessment. If in doubt, draw attention to it (another anti-vandalism editor for a second opinion, or ANI in an urgent case). GirthSummit _(blether) 10:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

2. Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?

   WP:AIV adding a short description to explain why I consider this a vandalism-only account

   Y GirthSummit _(blether) 10:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

   WP:ANI adding an accurate description of the situation. A complex case need a more accurate description as it can be not immediately obvious for the admins that have to decide.

   Y Remember to ensure you notify the user if you raise a case there (you know this already of course!). GirthSummit _(blether) 10:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

4. Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?

   WP:UAA adding some detail to justify the report

   Y GirthSummit _(blether) 10:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

5. Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?

   WP:ANI providing relevant diffs where the personal attacks have been perpetrated

   Y While personal attacks are never permitted, you're not obliged to report them. I've had a few people call me 'bone headed' or 'bigoted' before, because I revered their good-faith but unsourced assertions, and didn't think it was worth reporting to anyone, but use your own judgment; but if it is offensive, or persistent, then ANI is the right venue. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

6. Where and how should an edit war be reported?

   WP:AN/3 adding links to the article object of the edit war. Since I never filed a report there, I would follow the instructions stated at the head of the page like notifying the users with the subst:An3-notice template etc.

   Y Edit warring reports are a bit of a pain actually - you have to provide diffs of all the reverts, diffs showing where you drew their attention to edit warring regulations, attempts at dispute resolution... it's a lot more time-consuming than AIV or UAA. Having been involved in a few cases like this, I now give an edit warring warning the first time someone reverts my revert, and immediately start a new section on the talk page politely asking them to discuss it - then, if they persist in edit warring, I have the evidence to show that I attempted to resolve it amicably with them. Don't feel that you have to get involved with this kind of thing while patrolling though - you are perfectly at liberty to ignore content disputes and keep your focus on vandalism. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

7. Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?

   WP:BLPN adding some notes about the situation. Since I never filed a report there, I would follow the instructions stated at the head of the page like adding the BLP noticeboard template on the talk page of the concerned article.

   Y Yep - I've also never participated there, so we could read the instructions together! At least you know where to go if it happens; as with many other things, if a situation is urgent (someone is repeatedly adding unsourced defamation to a BLP), AIV or ANI would attract a speedy response. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Completion

​Well, I think I'm done for the moment... Horst Hof (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

One final hint - be careful when typing pings, I didn't receive that one because of the capital U you put in Summit - pings are case sensitive, the only work if you type them perfectly! I generally copy/paste from the recipient's last comment to avoid typos. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

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 100%. 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.