·Hello Skingo12, 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 when under my instruction, 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.
- Once you graduate, I will copy this page into your userspace so you have a record of your training and a reference for the future.
- Curriculum
There are several sections of the training course. In some of them, will be asking you to do perform practical exercises (for example, patrolling recent changes or the abuse log in order to find problematic edits); in others, I will ask you to read certain policies and guidelines, and then ask you some questions about their content. 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. Pahunkat (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The start
editGadgets
editTwinkle
editTwinkle is a highly useful gadget that can be enabled by any autoconfirmed user. It is used to automate a variety of maintenance tasks, including reverting vandalism, tagging pages for deletion and requesting page protection (you'll learn about these later in the course). See Wikipedia:Twinkle for more information about this tool.
Redwarn
editRedwarn is a tool specifically designed for reverting vandalism and warning users. You can read its documentation, including how to install the tool, at Wikipedia:RedWarn.
Huggle
editHuggle is another anti-vandalism tool which comes in the form of a desktop application. To use Huggle you must have rollback permissions, so we won't be covering Huggle during this course - though feel free to ask me about it upon completion. You can read up about it at Wikipedia:Huggle.
- Enable Twinkle and RedWarn (if you haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled them.
Done Skingo12 (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Finding the vandals
editThere are two main ways to find edits to check for vandalism. The first is through the recent changes log - this can be accessed by clicking the 'Recent changes' link in the 'contribute' section at the left navigation bar, or navigating to Special:Recentchanges. The second way if through monitoring the abuse log, which lists edits which have tripped edit filters - these edits may still go through or may be disallowed depending on the filter. This can be accessed at Special:Abuselog.
Good faith and vandalism
editWhen patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful to an article, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. Note that good faith edits are different to completely good edits. While it is necessary to revert good-faith edits, we treat them differently from vandalism, so it is important to recognize the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit. Please read WP:AGF, WP:BITE and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the tasks in this section. I'd suggest starting off with monitoring recent changes.
- Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
Vandalism is when a user intentionally tries to disrupt Wikipedia, while good faith editing is where a user is not trying to be malicious, but merely testing or making mistakes simply because they dont know what they are doing wrong. Skingo12 (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
In terms of the definition of vandalism vs Good faith. If you revert a good-faith edit, remember to leave a message on the user's talk page to help them - even a welcome message is good.
Question: How would you distinguish edits between that which are vandalism and that which are made in good faith?
Sorry, forgot about that last bit. Some obvious red flags would be the edit description not matching what was done, for example very often a user will simply say “grammar” and then just add large amounts of text. Another red flag would be removal of content without any edit description. Skingo12 (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
One of my favourite diffs: "added content" (-5,720) [1]. Also look for previous warnings and the user's previous contribs for an indicator.
- Pahunkat, this made me chortle when I saw it. I’ve just found another glorious one (it cannot quite compare to your one): “Corrected typo.” (-3,991). Would have to be quite a large typo. Skingo12 (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Skingo12, Indeed - a very big typo. I wonder what was misspelt :-) Pahunkat (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- For some odd reason vandals love to use canned edit summaries such as that one - it always draws my attention to the diff when I patrol recent changes. Pahunkat (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Please explain why it is important to not to WP:BITE newcomers whose edits may have been made in good faith
It is important not to bite the newcomers as they are all possible contributors, biting them would cut off the supply of new editors. In addition, quite a lot of edits are made by unregistered users, especially (in my experience) to people or media that they are interested in, where they update or improve articles that would take longer to be noticed by more experienced editors. Skingo12 (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Precisely
- Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. These can be from your editing history or from your next recent changes/Abuse log patrol.
| Type | Diff | Trainer's comment |
|---|---|---|
| Good-faith edit | [2] | If I saw this in normal times I would assume this is a good faith edit, however it needs reverting because the person is non-notable and has no Wikipedia page. Right now there's something going on which means you will see lots of additions like these with comments to notable people sections, but this isn't really relevant to the course so I'll leave it at there.
|
| Good-faith edit | [3] 2nd attempt |  Interesting case. From what I can see the full name of the article does include a star, but on closer inspection fans may have edited the linked article recently to also include that star. I'm not an expert on Anime, so I'll leave it as a yellow tick.
|
| Good-faith edit | [4] | AGF - this could have been a test edit, the user is new.
|
| Vandalism | [5] | The first change alone (removal of the space), and I would have assumed good faith. The second change looks like vandalism, though I'm no expert at football either.
|
| Vandalism | [6] | Yes, this is vandalism
|
| Vandalism | [7] | , in any case this is vandalism. This also happens to be part of the disruption that we're experiencing right now. If you're interested, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Broad-based spam adding non-notable people and the related discussion on EF/N.
|
Hope I did the links properly! Skingo12 (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
A note about Redwarn and Twinkle
edit
Hopefully you'll have noticed that RedWarn allows you three primary options for performing a rollback - green, blue, and red links (see the screenshot). All three will revert all of the most recent consecutive edits made by a single user to a page. The orange button should only be used when a user blanks a large portion of the page without an edit summary that explains why - this is called unexplained removal of content.
Try to use these buttons where possible. The green and the blue ones allow you to add an edit summary - it's described as 'optional', but you should not treat it as such - always leave a brief edit summary, even if it's just 'Rv test edit', or 'Rv unexplained removal of content', or whatever. Use the green one when you think it's a good faith mistake, and the blue one when you're not sure. Only use the red one when you are certain that it is unambiguous vandalism - it saves time, because it leaves a generic edit summary, and all of them will take you directly to the talk page of the person you have reverted, to allow you to use the 'Warn' option to give them a warning. (Also note that you can use the purple "restore this version" button when you need to revert edits by multiple users.) There are more options for 'rollback' buttons if you click the three dots at the very end of the menu, for edits that require reverting because they violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines (for example edits uncompliant with the manual of style, undisclosed paid editing and enforcing violations of WP:3RR).
Likewise, with Twinkle there are three 'rollback' links - once again they are red, blue and green. You should apply the same principles of judgement as for the buttons in RedWarn when deciding which link to use.
Note that, per WP:3RR, An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. However, exceptions apply (see the 3RR page) - including reverting blatant and obvious vandalism. If you're not sure, it's best not to go past three reverts and attempt to engage the editor in discussion.
Hello Skingo12, please see the above. When you're finished, please ping me below so I can take a look Just so I can have an idea, whereabouts would you place yourself in terms of Counter-vandalism work? Thanks :-) Pahunkat (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Pahunkat, I have read all the guidance, done the tasks and enabled Redwarn (I already had twinkle set up). In terms of experience, I usually go to the recent changes page and add some filters, check the change and then use twinkle to revert and leave a warning. I have done a few edits, about 450 in total, and about 200 in main space. I recently applied for pending changes reviewer as well, so hopefully that will come through soon. I am always ready to learn more though! Thanks, Skingo12 (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Skingo12, thanks for letting me know about your current experience. Could you answer the three questions above, which are based on the linked pages? Also, Could you double check diff 2 - that looks like a completely good edit to me, as opposed to a good-faith edit - these are different in Wikipedia. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Warning and reporting
editWhen you use RedWarn or 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 note that most of this is automated on RedWarn; you'll need to pick this only if you pick the blue button.
- Please answer the following questions
- Why do we warn users?
We warn users to show them that there are editors on Wikipedia who “care” and to (hopefully) make them change their mind about vandalism. We also do it to notify them that they know where and when they have made a mistake. Skingo12 (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
To let them know they've made mistakes. Vandals might not stop, good-faith users may have a read and change. It isn't always clear whether a user is acting in good faith, so always AGF if you're unsure.
- When would a 4im (only) warning be appropriate?
In severe cases of vandalism (this incident is one of the main reasons I do anti-vandalism) where it is clear that is not an accidental edit or possibly good faith. Skingo12 (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
It is also permitted in cases where there is excessive disruption (for example, if a user has reverted multiple times in a short space of time to restore vandalism).
- Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it? (Hint - read the link before answering!)
It should always be used if it is a warn or welcome template on a user talk page and is done by adding subst: to a template, eg “
|
This is an example of a template. For help with templates, see Help:Template. |
”. Skingo12 (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
For future reference, you can use nowiki tags to insert markup without it being converted (e.g. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).
- What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalizes again?
Usually I use the twinkle “ARV” function to add them to the administrator intervention/blocking notice board. Skingo12 (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Question: How about if you needed to report manually?
Then I would head over to the ARV notice board and include a link to the user, and the diff of the most recent vandalism. Skingo12 (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I think you know what you're talking about - WP:AIV.
- Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. For each revert/warning please fill in a line on the table below. Note that you must be the user that reverts the vandalism and warns the user. If you have trouble with the wiki markup, tell me and we'll get it sorted out.
| # | Diff of your revert | Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff | Trainer's Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [8] | Obviously vandalisim, warned with twinkle. |
|
| 2 | [9] | Obvious vandalisim | Tiktok distuption again
|
| 3 | [10] | Removal of content with no explanation, notified with twinkle. | Perhaps a COI of some sort is involved here?
|
| 4 | [11] | More content removal, just noticed my red warn error. | Though someone should add sources to that paragraph.
|
| 5 | [12] | Addition of non notable person, warned with twinkle (I assume this is part of the tiktok issue?) | One more for the Tiktok disruption
|
| 6 | [13] | Changed from library to a shop, warned with twinkle. | I'd AGF here, they may just want to add their favorite local shop which, though unconstructive, isn't necessarily going to be made in bad faith
|
| 7 | [14] | Obviously vandalism, immature addition to the name, I initially selected the wrong warning level. | You seem to know more than I do on this subject, so I'll leave it at that.
|
| 8 | [15] | Again, obviously vandalism, warned with twinkle (I assume it is once again the TikTok thing) | Tiktok again.
|
| 9 | [16] | More obvious vandalism, I’m not completely familiar with all the terms used, however I think it’s something sexual? | I think this is tiktok again, note that the term used there seems to refer to the football structure in Germany - Bundesliga.
|
| 10 | [17] | Again name changing, evidently vandalism, warned with twinkle. | Tiktok vandalism again - link hijacking is quite common.
|
Skingo12, Please find the new section above. Now we're looking at warning and reporting users. I've added feedback to the questions in part 1, though you've done really well there - please read it and respond if necessary. Once again, ping me when done or if you have a question below. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Pahunkat, I have done a few of the tasks however my internet at the moment is abysmal so I will do the vandalism examples later. I pinged you because I had a question: What is the difference between the twinkle rollback and the rollback you have to request? I read the documentation, however (for me at least) it dosent really make it clear. Also yes I heard about the Tiktok vandalism thing. Thanks, Skingo12 (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Skingo12, when you use the rollback function in Twinkle/RW (RW for now), you aren't really using the full rollback function - just a rollback-like function. This works fine, and as a result it isn't urgent to apply for the permission. What the rollback permission does is that it gives you a much faster way to revert edits, and the ability to use other counter-vandalism tools such as Huggle. Pahunkat (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Protection and speedy deletion
editProtecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only an administrator can protect or delete pages; however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion or request protection. You can use the RedWarn menu (on the right-hand side, the RPP option) to request page protection. Twinkle can be used to request speedy deletion (the TW menu next to the search bar on top, the CSD option) and also request page protection (the RPP option on the menu).
Protection
editPlease read the protection policy.
- In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
When there is a high amount and rate of IP and new user vandalism. Skingo12 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
And in content disputes between non-autoconfirmed editors / IPs
- In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?
When there is regular vandalism but not at a high rate. Skingo12 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
When there is an edit war or content dispute (usually by extended confirmed users), to ensure that every change has reached consensus on the talk page which can then be reviewed by an administrator. Skingo12 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Persistent disruption / content dispute between extended-confirmed users.
- In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
When an article is frequently created, but has already been deleted, without overturning the deletion decision. Skingo12 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Repeatedly recreated and deleted articles
- In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
Usually only if there is frequent vandalism and often a second unprotected talk page is created where the restricted users can leave good faith messages. (Also is it necessary for me to sign every question answer?) Skingo12 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
And if they are protected, it will only be for a very short amount of time. I haven't seen the 'second unprotected talk page' scenario before. And no, you don't have to sign every answer.
- Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request at WP:RPP below. (Note - it might take you a while to come across a circumstance where this is required - we can continue with the next section of the course before you do this, but when the need arises please post here and ping me).
Hi Pahunkat, I requested page protection with persistent vandalism from a range of Ip and new users. Cheers, Skingo12 (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Pahunkat, this went through by the way and has now been archived. Cheers, Skingo12 (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
editPlease read WP:CSD.
- In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?
- Tag one page in any namespace for speedy deletion. It may take a while to find one, so I'd be willing to move on if you can't find any to tag. Post the page name below. Hint: You'll have a better chance of success at this task if you go through the abuse log to find pages which have tripped filters such as "possible self-promotion in userspace" and similar
[18]
Done This one was interesting, it had fake references. Skingo12 (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I can't see it now but it's been deleted under WP:CSD#U5. I'm guessing it was probably a personal webpage based on experience, and these are often tagged under WP:CSD#G11 as well.
Speedy deletion examples
editIn past iterations of this course, students have been asked to go out and tag multiple mainspace 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.
Tag under G10, report username to UAA noticeboard. Skingo12 (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2021 (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.
I would tag under G11, unquestionably a purely promotional page, I would also report the user to the UAA noticeboard. Skingo12 (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Clear example of a G11, and whilst many admins will see the username when deleting, WP:CORPNAME applies here so a UAA report is warranted.
- 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 5,250 subscribers on YouTube.
Tricky, having read the guidance I would first check it was actually true, if so I would tag AfD for not meeting notability guidelines. However I believe I can’t tag under A7 as it technically meets WP:CCS. Skingo12 (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a case of A7. The claims of significance are:
- Aspiring American actor and songwriter - WP:CRYSTAL applies here
- Starred in many school plays - not significant
- Published two albums on Soundcloud - still not significant
- Over 5,250 subscribers on YouTube - not significant either
And most of the time there's no way to verify the claims either. This is a bit of WP:NPPS more than CVU but it's good to know all the CSD criteria because you'll come across these types of pages when doing counter-vandalism work.
- Scenario 4
A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content:
Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz.
(Attribution: Ritchie333 came up with this scenario as a question to an old RfA candidate. I've borrowed his example here. Hint: Try Google searching a few key terms from this short article.)
I did a quick search and (among other things) found this The Nice in which both Bazz Ward and “Lemmy” are mentioned. I have read the guidance and am not too sure about it so I would probably tag under A1, or AfD it for not complying with the manual of style, being hard to understand and possibly for being a duplicate/redundant?. Skingo12 (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Question: Could this be made into a redirect?
I have very limited (no) experience with redirects, however I don’t think it could be a redirect as the articles are on two different topics.
- 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?
After reading the guidance if it did have “All rights reserved” at the bottom then I would tag under G:12. If it did not have “All rights reserved” at the bottom then I would add the {{copypaste}} template. Skingo12 (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Either scenario, tag under G12.
- Scenario 6
A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.
If it already existed on another wikimedia project then I would tag under A2, otherwise I would tag with {{Not English}} and list at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Skingo12 (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Scenario 7
A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
I would tag under A3 after asking the user why they blanked it. Skingo12 (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
G7 is probably better.
- 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 draftspace? How about in article space, or in a user sandbox?
It’s fine for them to make a user page with this, however I would probably inform them about Wikipedia’s test edit policy. If it were draft space I would tag with G1, in article space I would tag with G1 as well and in sandbox I would inform about test edits (as long as it’s not a sandbox subpage, in which case I would tag with G2). Skingo12 (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
You've got the right idea on which namespaces warrant deletion and what you would use. However, if it was a sandbox subpage I think it's fine since this should, in theory, still be a user sandbox (this isn't really mentioned in the policy). I wouldn't inform them of the test edit policy if they put that content in the sandbox, since the sandbox is where we direct users to make test edits.
Skingo12, sorry for the late marking - please see the next section above. Please read my feedback from the last section - there's one question to do, otherwise everything's fine. Once again, ping me below if you have any questions. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Revision Deletion and Oversight
editPlease 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 provides an even greater level of restriction, with only oversighters able to see the comments. The threshold between the two is quite fine - I've been on the wrong side of it a few times. If you are in doubt as to whether revdel or oversight is required, the best bet is to forward it to the oversight team - whoever reviews it will be able to make the decision and act on it.
- If you believe an edit needs to be revision deleted, how would you request that?
I would email a administrator with the [[Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests]] category.
- If you believe that it's so serious it needs oversight, how would you request that?
I would email the oversight team. You can use special:emailuser to email the oversight team.
Skingo12 - once again, sorry for the delay. Well done in the previous task - see above for the next task, and please read the feedback I've left you there. Once again, ping me below if you have any questions :-) Pahunkat (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Pahunkat, I have reviewed feedback and responded where nessescary. This was helpful as I had less experience with CSD. I have also completed the most recent section. I did have a question: would it be a good idea to request revision deletion of this diff? Thanks, Skingo12 (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Usernames
editWikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol the User creation log to check for new users with inappropriate usernames (note that you can set this to view 500 users rather than the default 50 - I find that easier to scroll through quickly, and the link on my userpage takes you there directly). There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed:
- Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia (words like admin, sysop, Wikimedia Foundation, etc), usernames that impersonate other people (either famous people, or other Wikipedians' usernames), or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
- Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.
- Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
- Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.
Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particular attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.
- Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why). If you need more information before deciding what to do, explain what more you need.
- BGates
Well it is probably unlikely that this is actually Bill Gates, so I would report to UUA after making sure that it is not actually bill gates (although it would be hard to check), as it blatantly breaches the misleading rule.
This could mean Bob Gates. Only report if they edit articles close to Bill Gates, etc. You don't need to verify if this is Bill Gates or not, the account will be softblocked and given the option to create a new account or verify their identity through UTRS
- Pakunhat
Would report to UAA as it is unlikely that it accidentally very similar to your username (unless it is a reference to something).
This is a real-life example. The user in question was a LTA. See Pakunhat
- J0E B1DEN
Would report to UAA for blatant misleading username.
- JoeAtBurgerKing
This is a minor thing and I think is fine.
This form of username is encouraged, but worth keeping an eye on their edits in case they do this or similar in violation of NPOV
- JoeTheSysop
First check if the user actually had syop permissions and if so do nothing, however if not then report to UAA.
- Sk1ng012
This is obviously an attempt at impersonation or misleading, my name is not a reference to anything so straight to UAA.
- LMedicalCentre
I would notify the user of policy with a tag as it could be commercial/shared.
This is a potential violation of WP:CORPNAME. As a result, check to see if they have edited about the topic. If they have, a report to UAA is warranted. If they've been editing about something completely unrelated (e.g. trains), leave a note explaining why their username might be seen as a violation by some editors.
- Yallaredumb
Report to UAA as it implies intent to vandalise.
Report to UAA because it is a disruptive and offensive username
- Christopher Smith
I did a quick search and found a similarity to Christopher Smith (English actor) and Christopher Smith (director). Because of this I would notify the user with the {{subst:uw-username}} tag.
There are bound to be multiple Christopher Smiths in the world. 'Christopher Smith' isn't really as notable as Joe Biden either. Because of this, only report to UAA if they edit the mentioned articles
- Oshwaah
I would check for any similarities, but if not it seems fine (unless I am unaware of a reference).
Oshwah is an admin on enwiki. Does this change anything? Pahunkat (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I would put it on the UAA noticeboard for similarity. Skingo12 (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- 😜
This is a non script character so I would use the {{subst:uw-uall}} tag or, depending on their edits, report to UAA.
- 1kdimfi3jgoerto4u5urt9u3u93dhoweeherwrwehehehe
I would report to UAA as a confusing username.
Disruptive username
Skingo12, here's the next section. Once again, when you're finished or ping me below :-) Pahunkat (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Emergencies
editI 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?
Contact the wikimedia fondation at emergency@wikimedia.org and then contact an admin via IRC or (preferably for me) discord. I would include the diff.
- 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)?
Still report it as per policy the evaluation is to be left to foundation staff.
Skingo12, please see above for the next section. It's short, but very important. Once again, ping me below if you have any questions and when you're finished. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Dealing with difficult users
editOccasionally, 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 vandalize 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?
As very often their motivation for vandalism is others response or recognition. Denying them this makes vandalism seem boring, and will hopefully take away their motive for vandalism.
Often they get pleasure out of getting recognition from other users.
Skingo12 - see above for the next section. This is quite important when dealing with trolls - especially important when dealing with some LTAs which live off attention. WP:BEANS is also a worthwhile read. Once again, ping me below when done. Pahunkat (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Rollback
editIn light of your recent contributions, I expect that if you apply for the rollback permission at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, an administrator would be happy to enable it on your account, but first we should demonstrate that you understand what the tool is, and the responsibilities that go along with it.
The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced counter vandalism operatives to revert vandalism with the click of one button, not unlike the "rollback" button that you've already been using in Twinkle. This would give you a new rollback button in addition to the three you've been seeing in Twinkle. The new rollback button is slightly faster than the Twinkle rollback button, but more importantly, having the rollback right gives you access to downloadable counter-vandalism software like Huggle and Stiki.
If you're interested, take a look at our rollback guideline at WP:Rollback and feel free to answer the questions below. The rollback right is not an essential part of this course, so if you're not interested, feel free to say so and we'll skip this section.
- Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.
When there is repeated obvious vandalism or a repeated misguided user where it would take too long to revert every edit.
Question: What do you mean by 'repeated misguided users'? And when may it not be used?
Sorry I for got to do that bit. It shouldn’t be used when it is necessary to leave an edit summary or to revert good faith edits. As for the misguided user part, I was quoting the guidance[19], but I suppose it would mean to revert multiple edits which would be tedious to do manually, however it would be important to notify the user and provide a reason at the relevant place, for example the talk page.
I haven't read that arbcom case before, but I see where you get that from now. You cannot use rollback in content disputes.
- Hopefully this will never happen, but it does occasionally. If you accidentally use rollback, what should you do?
You could rollback the rollback (can be confusing) or, preferably, just undo restore the version from before the rollback.
Use twinkle to 'rollback' your rollback, leaving an edit summary such as "undoing accidental rollback".
- Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?
No, as it only leaves a generic edit summary.
Skingo12, you've done well in CVUA so far, here's a section about the rollback permission we briefly talked about earlier on. Before applying, you should complete the questions above. It isn't necessary to apply for rollback - RW and Twinkle do just as well, but it gives you a quick way to remove obvious vandalism and enables you to use tools such as WP:HG. Pahunkat (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Pahunkat, thanks and all done on this section as well now. Ill probably apply for rollback after this is marked. Thanks, Skingo12 (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Pahunkat I think I mostly understand, I just don’t completely get the need for having another rollback as there seems to be a wealth of similar tools, some that allow for edit summaries, but I suppose the reason would be speed or convenience and to allow use of things like Huggle? Thanks, Skingo12 (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Skingo12, that's the main reason someone would request the rollback right. As I have said before, it isn't completely necessary for counter-vandalism work, but if useful. I'll add the next section below, and leave you to decide if you want to apply for rollback. Pahunkat (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Monitoring period
editCongrats, that's the end of the theory! Now that we've been through everything that you need to know as a vandal patroller, you will be given a 5 day monitoring period. During this time, you are free to revert vandalism (and edit Wikipedia) as you normally do; I will monitor your progress in counter-vandalism. If there are any issues, I will raise them with you below and if you have any problems or difficult decisions, you are free to ask them below. After five days, if there's been no major issues, you will take the final test; passing this will mean you graduate from the CVUA. Good luck!
5 day period - Starts 12:00 UTC, 03.02.20
Skingo12, any questions during the monitoring period, please ping me below. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Pahunkat, I have now requested rollback rights. I’ll probably get to some RC patrolling later today. Thanks for all your help, Skingo12 (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Skingo12 - FYI SQUARE FEET MARBLE appears to be a company name. Pahunkat (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Pahunkat, yes sorry looks like I forgot to UAA it (I will do that now). I almost conflicted with you on that Cildo Meireles page. Cheers, Skingo12 (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Skingo12, Good work on both pages - I happened to find that IP adding something to that page about Peppa pig as I was going through your recent contribs. You've been warning them well, which is good - they were up to a 4 by the time I reached the page so I put in a report at AIV. Pahunkat (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Pahunkat, I just had a question: Is it appropriate to jump to a level 2 or 3 warning? I know it is possible to go to level 4 instantly and have seen some other occasions where users have started on level 2 or 3. Cheers, Skingo12 (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Skingo12, it's fine to issue level 2 warnings as a first warning, especially for particularly bad cases of vandalism. I have seen users use a level 3 warning as a first warning, but I don't tend to do this. Pahunkat (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Skingo12, so far everything seems fine - lots of work done today, well done! A few things I picked out from a few diffs I looked at:
- At Leominster, Massachusetts you reverted a tiktok vandal, then reverted yourself and then reverted again to use a different RW option. In this case, you can make a 'dummy edit' rather than reverting yourself (something small like adding a comma/wikilink) so you can leave an edit summary rather than reverting yourself to do so.
- If you see the edit summary "took away fake info", it's best to use the blue rollback button to leave an edit summary like "rv removal of content, explain on the talk page why you think it's fake and provide sources"
Other than that, I'm impressed - good reports to AIV/UAA, speedy deletion (I recommend enabling a speedy deletion log in your Twinkle preferences, mine is here), users warned and vandals reverted. A brilliant start :-) Pahunkat (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Pahunkat, thanks for all the feedback. I’ll remember the “dummy edit” thing - I did think that my solution was a bit convoluted! I usually try to put more detail about why the edit was reverted in the twinkle warn when necessary, but it dose make sense to put it in the revert description so I’m future I will do that as well. I’ve enabled the twinkle CSD log so hopefully that will start to fill up soon. I’ve also started answering one or two edit requests, and am planning to reapply for PCR permissions soon (I’m still waiting on the rollback permission). I’m glad I impressed :). Thanks, Skingo12 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Pahunkat, just to let you now I was approved for Pending changes and Rollback rights. Thanks, Skingo12 (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Skingo12, Great! And I see you're on to Huggle as well - with Huggle remember to take your time, even though you'll be under constant pressure to make decisions :-) Pahunkat (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Skingo12, heads up that the monitoring period ends today, and after that comes the final exam. Passing the exam will mean graduation from CVUA! Pahunkat (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Skingo12 - that's the end of the monitoring period! You've made too many reverts (that's a good thing) for me to look at them all, so I'll do a random selection of diffs - did you encounter anything that you'd like to ask me about? Pahunkat (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Skingo12 I found no glaring issues that need to be solved when looking at some random diffs, only a few minor things:
- This edit looks to me like vandalism rather than NPOV issues
- You reverted this as unexplained removal of content, but the IP had an edit summary explaining why (First-time Huggle error?)
- You reverted this as "Reverting COI" and then left an (unsigned) COI notice on the IP's TP. Note that we don't prohibit users editing with a COI, but we recommend that they request edits on the talk page. In this case, I'd also have left a warning about adding unreferenced material.
- This was probably vandalism and note that the username looks like a play on the Black Lives Matter movement.
- I'd recommend asking the user to explain why the info was "false" rather than use a generic edit summary here - whilst most won't take it to the talk page, some will.
That's all I could find - 5 small issues out of at a large number of reverts. Apart from that everything else was good. Given everything above is minor I think we're alright to go onto the final exam, before we do you have any questions about the above? Pahunkat (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Pahunkat, thanks for bringing those up, looking back at them I am shaking my head in disbelief at my silly mistakes. One and two are my huggle errors (issues setting up shortcuts), point 3 was me misremembering the guidance and how to sign a template (what on earth was I doing), four was another of my huggle errors (slip of the finger) and five was me struggling with huggle (I have since figured out how to leave custom edit summaries and warnings). Hopefully this explains my mistakes and I have since resolved every issue (and reread the COI guidance and template signing). Cheers, Skingo12 (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Final Exam
editPlease read each of the following questions carefully, and ensure that you have responded fully - some of them ask you to expand on what you would do in different situations. When responding to numbered questions please start your response with "#:" (except where shown otherwise - with **). You don't need to worry about signing your answers.
Part 1
edit- For each of these examples, please state whether you would call the edit(s) described as vandalism or good faith edit, a reason for that, and how you would deal with the situation (ensuring you answer the questions where applicable).
- A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article, having never edited before. Would you treat it differently if they had done the same thing once before?
If this was their fist time I would revert it and give a level one warning. At this point it would be treated as good faith. If they had done it once before then i would issue a level 2 warning which doesn't specify as good or bad faith, its just a note. After that it would be treated as bad faith.
- A user adds their signature to an article after once being given a {{Uw-articlesig}} warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?
At that point I would give a level 2 warning, which has doesn't include a faith assumption. If they then repeated it I would issue a level 3 warning that assumes bad faith and then after that issue a final level 4 warning and then after that report to the AIV noticeboard. Obviously I would remove every signature they added to the article as well.
Question: - A level 2 warning seems ok, but for what - uw-articlesig is a single issue warning meaning that for this template, there's only a generic template with no levels.
IN that case I would use {{subst:uw-vandalisim2}}. {{uw-disruptive2}} would be my preference, along with a quick note above signatures in articles.
- 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?
The first time I would revert and issue a level 1 vandalism warning (which assumes good faith). After that I would follow the warning system until it is necessary to report to AIV after a level 4 warning. Per below
- A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
As above, I would revert and issue a level 1 test edit warning (assumes good faith). Then I would wan and revert following the warning system until it is necessary to report. Level 1,2,3,4 warnings don't really have a good-faith / bad-faith level associated with each level. However, 4im warnings should only be issued to clear bad-faith editors.
- 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?
The first time I would restore the content, with a edit summary 'If you believe this is incorrect information then please bring it up on the talk page with reliable sources'. I would also issue a level 1 content removal warning and include the summary in the optional comment box. If they continue to remove the content without reaching consensus or providing a reliable source then I would continue restoring and warning with that summary until they stop, provide a reliable source or it is necessary to report them. Be wary of WP:3RR, if it's ambiguous it's best to engage the user in conversation.
Part 2
edit- Which templates warning would give an editor in the following scenarios. If you don't believe a template warning is appropriate outline the steps (for example what you would say) you would take instead.
- A user blanks Cheesecake.
I would use {{subst:uw-delete1}}.
- A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
I would use {{subst:uw-attempt1}}.
- A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
I would use {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}.
- A user puts "CHRIS IS WEIRD!" on Atlanta Airport.
I would use {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}.
- A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
I would use {{subst:uw-delete1}}.
- A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
I would use {{subst:uw-test1}}.
- A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
I would use {{subst:uw-vandalism}}.
Question: - Which level warning?
Oh sorry, it would be {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}.
- A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
If it was uncited then I would use {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}.
- A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
I would use {{subst:uw-delete4im}}. If they did it again I would report to AIV.
- A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
I would report to the UAA noticeboard with diff links and a summary.
Question: UAA?
Oh sorry, I meant AIV.
- 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).
Depending on the issues I have had with the user I would either report to the administrators noticebard for a personal attack or would use {{subst:uw-npa1}} to would use {{subst:uw-npa4im}} depending on the issues and anything else they did. (eg. talk page messages).
- A user adds a spam link to Horoscope, no previous warnings
I would use {{subst:uw-spam1}}.
- A user removes an AfD notice from an article whilst the discussion is ongoing, they have received a level 2 warning for doing the same thing
I would use {{subst:uw-adf3}}.
- A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
I would use {{subst:uw-test1}}.
Part 3
edit- What CSD tag you would put on the following articles? (The content below represents the entire content of the article).
- Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
I would tag as G11.
- Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
I would tag under G3 after checking the article history for a un-vandalised article version that could be reverted to. - I'd prefer A7 here, but G3 could be used especially with this tiktok thing going on right now.
- Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
I would tag under A1 or alternatively AfD it. - A1. Never AfD an article like this where there's no context.
- A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
I would G3 as a blatant hoax.
- wiki is annoying and useless even I can edit it so dont use it
Tag under G3 as vandalsim. This comes under G3, G10 and I've even had it argued under A10. But G3/G10 is the best criteria here.
- He is an olympic swimmer
I would tag under A1.
Part 4
edit- Are the following new (logged in) usernames violations of the username policy? Describe why or why not and what you would do about it (if they are a breach).
- TheMainStreetBand
Report to UAA for implied shared use and examine edits to determine if it was promotional as well.
- SUBSCRIBETOKURZGESAGT
Report to UAA for promotional.
- Brian's Bot
If it wasn't actually a bot report to UAA for misleading.
- sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
Report to UAA for 'confusing' and disruptive.
- WikiAdmin
If not actually a admin report to UAA for misleading.
- Coles' Staff
Report to UAA for shared use.
- 12:12, 23 June 2012
Report to UAA for confusing (can disrupt the signing format).
- PMiller
I did a quick google search and found this but could easily be a real name as well so if they haven't edited anything to do with the company leave alone, however if they had report to UAA for promotional or, depending on the edits, warn.
- RealDonaldTrump
Report to UAA for blatantly misleading.
Part 5
edit- Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.
- Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
Rollback should not be used in a content dispute, if the editors are not reaching consensus on the talk page then request page protection to prevent vandalism and end the edit war by forcing the changes to be approved by an admin/extended confirmed.
Question: Whilst the above is true, can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
You can, but only if it is obvious and depending on the severity and the war I may just wait until the warring editors have been blocked or the page protected.
You cannot get into an edit war if reverting blatant and obvious vandalism. If the edits are not clear vandalism, it's best to attempt to engage the other editor in discussion on a talk page.
- Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
To the AIV noticeboard with links to the vandalism diffs and a short summary.
- Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
Arbitration committee following the guidance there. WP:ANI. WP:ARBCOM is a last resort, for situations which the community cannot handle and there have been various attempts to solve the problem.
- Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
To the UAA noticeboard with the reasons for reporting.
- Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
Since the personal attack noticeboard was deleted to the main administrator noticeboard with diff links and a summary about who was attacked and how.
- Where and how should an edit war be reported?
To the WP:AN3 notice board with a link to the page and a summay.
- Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
To the BLP noticeboard.
Skingo12, please see the exam above. Take your time - there's no rush to complete it. If you have any questions ping me below, likewise when you are finished. Best of luck! Pahunkat (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Pahunkat thanks, I just wanted the check that I am doing the formatting right? Also I assume the questions are supposed to be very similar? Thanks, Skingo12 (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Also for section two are all of the articles eligible for speedy deletion? Thanks, Skingo12 (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Pahunkat, sorry for my stupid questions! I am just pinging you to let you know have now finished the exam. For part 2 I assumed they had no prior warning unless specified. Cheers, Skingo12 (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Completion
editSkingo12, 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 a score of 93%. Well done! Pahunkat (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
As a graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox (make sure you replace your enrollee userbox) as well as the graduation message posted on your talk page (this can be treated the same as a barnstar).
{{User CVUA|graduate}}:
 | This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate. |