User:Girth Summit/CVUA/Andrew Base

Hello Andrew Base, 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 Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

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.
 * How to use this page

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.
 * The CVUA curriculum

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. Girth Summit  (blether) 06:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Communication

Twinkle
Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Your contributions history make it clear that you already use it extensively - just for the sake of form though, please ensure that you have read through WP:TWINKLE carefully.

, I've read WP:TWINKLE.Andrew Base (talk) 10:03, 6 September 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. While it is often necessary to revert such edits, we treat them differently from vandalism, so it is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the tasks in this section.


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

A good faith edit is an edit which is made with good intention but due to their lack of knowledge about Wikipedia policy the edit is not useful.

A vandalism is a bad faith edit which is made to deliberately destroy and harm wikipedia.

I have finished the first question.Andrew Base (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good summary - and exactly correct. The difference is all about intent - if the intention is to damage or deface the encyclopedia, it’s vandalism. It can be subtle, like introducing small errors, or it can be silly, like inserting jokes, or it can be offensive - it's all vandalism if it was done with the intention of harming our content. It's not always easy to determine intent however - someone deleting content, or inserting random text into an article, might be vandalising; on the other hand, they might be new to editing, and just experimenting. If in doubt, we assume good faith - we still revert, but we do it differently giving warning messages with links to specific guidance about what was wrong with the edit, rather than the generic vandalism warning templates. See the next question below...  Girth Summit  (blether)  18:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


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

How to I find and link you the diff? I edit by mobile but I am unable to find the diff.Andrew Base (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I confess that I'm not an expert on editing by mobile. I assume you view pages in desktop mode? You ought to be able to get a diff by comparing two versions of a page in the article's history, and copying the URL. See WP:DIFF for more. Girth Summit  (blether)  07:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

How can I copy the URL?Andrew Base (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, so I'm doing this on an Android mobile. I compared the last two versions of this page, touched the URL at the top of the screen, and touched the 'copy' button, which looks like two rectangles, one on top of the other. Then I paste it into a single pair of square brackets like an external link, like this. Make sense? It's much easier on a PC than a mobile by the way, I'd recommend using a pc if you can. Girth Summit  (blether)  08:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

1 this is a vandalism edit as the IP changed the band’s name.
 * Hmm. I'm not sure about this one. I don't know enough about the band, or Korean language, to know whether that change might have some sort of real meaning. I see that this article has been changed multiple times recently by different IPs - possibly by one editor using different devices or a dynamic IP. I agree that these changes are disruptive, but I'm not sure it's vandalism - from my perspective, this is more likely a fan who doesn't really know our policies. I'd have done a good-faith revert here, and probably given them an 'unsourced changes' warning; since the page is coming in for quite a bit of disruption at the moment, I've applied for page protection that will temporarily stop IP editors from changing it - we'll cover that later in the course.

2 this is a very bad faith edit and obvious vandalism as the user added slangs.
 * Absolutely, yes - this is vandalism, and your revert (and subsequent revert) were appropriate. The only thing I'd have done differently is use the Level 1 warning for the first instance, and the Level 2 for the second, since the IP made no edits prior to this. It can be frustrating going through all the steps when someone is obviously vandalising, but admins are far more likely to block an account if they see that they have been given warnings from 1-4 and still continue.

3 this is vandalism as the user removed content without proper explanation.
 * I actually don't think this is vandalism. Yes, they removed content, but they seem to think that the content was wrong. They should discuss their changes on the talk page, and provide a rationale, but it's not vandalism. See also their following edits, which seem to have been an attempt to change the article more carefully - not the hallmarks of a vandal. I've created a section on the talk page where they can discuss this, hopefully they will engage with that - if they continue to edit disruptively without discussing they will probably end up blocked for edit warring, but this is the kind of thing you need to be careful not to label as vandalism. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

4 this is a good faith but unhelpful as the user changed the scale without providing a reliable source.
 * Good - this appears to be someone trying to improve the article, but their information was wrong (the cited source explicitly refers to Kelvin, not Celsius).

5 this is a good faith but since the user changed the player’s current club without providing a source, the edit is unhelpful.
 * Sometimes with unsourced edits, it's worth checking to see whether the information is correct or not. I quickly googled the player's name, and the first result was this one, which confirms that the subject did indeed move to that new club in June of this year. In this case I would not have reverted, but instead would have added the source, and dropped a note on the IP's talk page thanking them for their contributions, but asking that next time they provide a source (there are welcome templates that allow you to do this, if you don't want to spend time writing a personal message). Perhaps you'd like to go back and do that in this instance? Girth Summit  (blether) 09:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I have undid my revert and also welcomed the IP. From next time I will check before reverting.Andrew Base (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Good, thank you for that. I've gone a step further, and added the source I found into the article, and explained the change in club in the body of the text and in the lead.

6 this is a good faith but unhelpful edit as the user added a content without providing a reliable source.
 * I agree with this revert. There were a couple of things wrong with this content. First, it was written in a manner that would contravene WP:NOTGUIDE, and addressing the reader in the second person (you, your) - this isn't OK. Had the content been sourced, I might have just rephrased the information, but since this was biomedical information that would have required WP:MEDRS-level sourcing, it is better to revert it.

I have finished this section. Please check my good faith and vandalism reverts.Andrew Base (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I've reviewed all of these reverts now - please read through all the feedback above carefully. Basically, you're doing great work, but I think that you need to lean a little more towards assuming good faith - two of the edits you flagged as vandalism were arguably good faith, and one of the good faith edits you reverted was actually an improvement to the article, even though it was unsourced. Don't worry - we all make mistakes when we're starting out, and we continue to make them even after lots of experience - the goal is to learn from them, and hopefully the ratio of mistakes to good calls will decrease over time.
 * It might be worth reading through the example of a series of mistakes made by a number of experienced patrollers, including myself, which was discussed at ANI in [|this thread]. A new account was blanking a section of a BLP which contained sourcing, and a number of patrollers were reinstating it and warning the user. When Cullen328 actually investigated the content and sourcing (instead of just blindly reverting like others had been doing), it became apparent that the sourcing was seriously problematic and the content was a blatant violation of our BLP policy - the new user was right to try to remove it, they just didn't know how to go about doing it properly, and ended up getting frustrated and making legal threats (which resulted in their account being blocked). Please bear that in mind when patrolling in future, and take time to investigate when it's not obviously vandalism.
 * With this in mind, and just so we can be sure that you've taken this on board, please find another two examples of vandalism, and two good faith edits, and post the diffs below. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  12:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I have read your comments carefully and from now I'll assume good faith. I have provided all the diffs below.Andrew Base (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

1 this is vandalism as the user changed the player’s birth place.
 * Yes, I agree, this is vandalism. Just changing a place of birth on its own isn't necessarily vandalism - but given that this person is in the news and the article is being vandalised a lot at the moment, and the exceedingly unlikely nature of the new birth place, plus the fact that they added '69' to his name, I don't think that there is any doubt that this is vandalism.

2 this is a very bad faith edit and pure vandalism.
 * Yes, definitely vandalism. If this was a one-off, I would probably AGF and assume it was an editing test. However, they had already been reverted by ClueBot and repeated their blanking; plus, after you reverted, they continued trying to do it until they were blocked. Definitely vandalism.

3 this is a good faith edit as the user added content without providing a source.
 * Yes, this was unsourced and I agree with your revert here - even if you'd been able to find a source to support the assertion, it's not clear to me that the content would have been relevant to the article, so it needed to be removed.

4 this looks like a good faith test edit
 * I think so. It's not clear what they were trying to do (why change the capitalisation?), but it's the only edit in that IP address's contribution history, so there's no reason not to assume good faith here.

Good work - I agree with all of these, so I think we can move on - I'll post the next section shortly. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  14:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Please do so.Andrew Base (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC) See below... Girth Summit  (blether) 15:53, 8 September 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?

We warn users to notify them that their edits are inappropriate or unconstructive for Wikipedia and to educate them about what is constructive editing. The key here is to make sure that they don’t repeat their actions and their should be a positive takeaway from the warning as to teach them to make useful contributions rather than repeating their actions.
 * ✅ Good answer - yes, it's to let them know that what they are doing is not appreciated, and to give them links to guidance on the relevant policies. It serves a couple of other purposes too though. First, warnings on their talk page are a useful guide to other counter-vandalism editors - if you see they've also had a few warnings, you know to escalate before even looking at their contributions. Second, it helps justify a request for their account/IP to be blocked - if an admin sees that they have received escalating warnings from 1 - 4 and they're still vandalising, they won't hesitate to block.


 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

If a user has vandalised an article more than 4 times and has not been warned yet, then we can we can warn them by the 4im warning. It should only be used in very serious circumstances.
 * ✅ So, there are two circumstances where I would give a 4im. One is, as you've described, if they have been repeatedly vandalising but nobody has warned them yet; the other is if their editing has been particularly egregious - inserting racist, sexist or homophobic hate speech into articles for example, or an unsourced accusation of sex crimes into a BLP should attract a 4im warning straight away.


 * 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!)

After going through H:SUBST and WP:UWUL I think we should substitute a template if we are adding it manually so that the message displayed on the recipient’s talk page doesn’t change if the template is changed later. If we add a warning by Twinkle or Huggle it is done automatically. If we add a template manually we would subst: inside the braces before the template name. For example, uw-vandalism3 would become Subst:vandalism3.
 * ✅ Yes - you probably won't ever need to do this manually, since Twinkle does it for you, but it's worth knowing in case you ever need to do this.


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

I will report that user or IP to WP:AIV so they can be blocked.
 * ✅ Yep. Again - Twinkle makes reporting much easier, I never do it any other way.

I have finished these questions.Andrew Base (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Great answers - next section is below. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


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

I have finished this section.Andrew Base (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Great work - I'm happy with all of these, I think we can move on, I'll add the next section shortly. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see below for the next section. Girth Summit  (blether) 18:10, 10 September 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. 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 page should be semi-protected when multiple new or unregistered users repeatedly vandalise a page simultaneously or repeatedly especially on WP:BLP.


 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

It is very similar to semi-protection, the main advantage of this over semi-protection it allows positive contributions from users who don’t have an account, the disadvantage is that it creates work for pending changes reviewers to check and approve the edit. If there is high vandalism for a short period semi-protection is better while for low vandalism in longer period I think pending changes protection is better.


 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

A page should not be fully protected unless there are mass vandalism and edit warring from extended confirmed account or the page contains critical templates or modules. Since, it is the highest level of protection which only admins can edit, it is generally avoided in main space or applied for a short period of time.


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

Salting would take place when a deleted article is being repeatedly recreated. This might be for a user who is constantly trying to create a promotional page for himself or non-notable person or company, or for attack or offensive pages. This form of protection used pre-emptively via the title blacklist to stop people from creating obvious unnecessary or attack pages unlike some other forms of protection.


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

Article talk pages are frequently less vandalism target compared to main space articles. For this, talk pages are not generally protected but in most serious cases of vandalism they may be semi-protected for a limited duration.


 * Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request at WP:RPP below. (Note - it might take you a while to come across a circumstance where this is required - we can continue with the next section of the course before you do this, but when the need arises please post here and ping me).

diff

I have finished the protection section. Andrew Base (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yes - these are all solid answers. I'm on mobile at the moment, I'll add the next section when I'm on my PC. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Add the next section according to your convenient time.Andrew Base (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey Girth, I have been granted the pending changes reviewer rights.Andrew Base (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes I just saw that - congratulations. I was just sitting down to write a supporting statement, but see that Chestford had already granted it! Next section is below... Girth Summit  (blether)  16:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.


 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

After reading WP:CSD I would say that a page should be speedily deleted if it falls in any of these criteria-

G1-Patent nonsense. Meaningless text, random characters etc.

G2-Test pages which have been created to test whether something works and is no longer needed.

G3- Pure Vandalism and blatant hoaxes which delibaretly intend to offend or misinform readers.

G4-Recreation of a page after deletion discussion, it does not apply if the content is substantially different from the previous revision.

G5- Created by a banned or blocked user during their block or ban.

G6-Technical deletions. Deleting orphaned templates, empty categories, disambiguation page with one entry etc.

G7- Author requests deletion. Only permissible if no other editors have done substantial work in that article.

G8- Pages dependent on a non-existent pages.

G9- Office action, right reversed by WMF if necessary.

G10- Attack or offensive pages. Pages consisting of negative materials, libel, threats or that are intended purely to harass someone.

G11- Unambiguos advertising or promotion pages which only exist to promote someone or something.

G12- Copyright violations stuff copied directly from another website.

U1- Under the request of user.

U5- Webhosting pages.

A1- Very short articles with no context. Not to be applied to new pages to allow sufficient time for more content to be added.

A2- Foreign language articles that are essentially identical to existing articles that exist elsewhere on wiki. eg- duplicates from German Wikipedia.

A3- Articles with no actual texts about the subject only categories or external links.

A5- Transwikied content.

A7- No indication of importantance lower threshold than WP:NOTABILITY content which has no indication whatsoever of why they would worth having an article about.

A9- No indication of importance (cricket match)- If there is no indication of why the cricket match is important enough to have an article. eg- a cricket played 10 years ago.

A10- Recently created article with a duplicate existing topic. If someone creates a new article for a subject which already has a page and the article has no new useful content.

A11- Subject has obviously been invented by the author and contains no indication of why the invention is important.

I have finished this question.Andrew Base (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey Girth, I have been also granted the rollback rights.Andrew Base (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Andrew - so I see! Congratulations! There is a section of this course that covers rollback use - I would normally go through that part of the course before recommending my students apply for Rollback, just because you can get into trouble if you misuse it. Just to be on the safe side, I think we should interrupt the CSD section and run through that quickly. So... Girth Summit  (blether)  06:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I'll complete the rollback section.Andrew Base (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Great. Just to add regarding the CSD answers above - you don't need to keep all of the options above in your mind, obviously you can refer back to WP:CSD any time you need to in order to help you decide which criteria may, or may not, apply. The most common one you are likely to come across in counter-vandalism work is probably G11 (promotion) - this is very common, especially in user space - I probably nominate 2-3 user pages per day on average for deletion using this tag. U5 is also common - that would be similar to G11, when people are using the user pages as a personal CV rather than advertising a product or company. Attack pages (G10) are less common, but you will probably encounter some. Once you've completed the rollback section, we'll look at some example scenarios and you can say which CSD tags you would apply. Girth Summit  (blether)  06:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Rollback
In light of your recent successful application for the rollback permission we should make sure 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.

It may be used to-

1.Revert obvious vandalism

2.Revert edits that you have made by mistake

3.Revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their ban or block.

4.To revert widespread edits (by a spam bot or misguided editor) which are judged to be unhelpful to Wikipedia.

It may not be used to-

1.Revert good faith edits which you happen to disagree with.

2. In situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected.

3. It can't be used on a page which has been only edited by one user as there would be nothing to revert to.

4. Rollback can't be used to restore a deleted revision. Attempting to do so will display an error message.

5. Rollback should never be used in case of edit wars.


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

There are two opttions-

1. Revert self-manually with a summary along the lines of 'revert accidental use of rollback'.

2. After the revert make a dummy edit with an appropriate edit summary.


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

According to WP:ROLLBACK it is possible to use certain tools to modify your rollback functionality and have it insert edit summaries when you use rollback. I dont use this scripts so I can't describe how it works. I think if I leave an edit summary I would use a regular revert or Twinkle blue rollback button.

I've finished the rollback section. Do you know if huggle can be used in mobile?Andrew Base (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good - I agree with you about using Twinkle instead of rollback if I want to leave an edit summary - I don't use those scripts myself.
 * I see that you are eager to get into Huggle. My personal advice would be to start out with Stiki, and get used to that before you get into Huggle. Both applications are similar, in that they are diff browsers; Stiki looks at Cluebot's queue of dubious diffs, whereas Huggle presents you with diffs in real time as the edits are made. Both are incredibly useful, but Huggle's real-time nature means that it's easy to feel a sense of time pressure to make quick decisions. I always recommend that people start out with Stiki, get used to working in a diff browser, and then try Huggle; it's your call, of course. Just remember that whichever you use, your reverts will count as rollback use, so be sure to make your decisions carefully, don't rush them (even if you are finding that others are beating you to the revert in Huggle, which happens all the time and can contribute to a feeling of time pressure).
 * I'll add the rest of the CSD section later today, got to go to work... Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  06:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Girth, I will download both Huggle and Stiki and will then probably start our with Stiki. Does huggle and stiki work in mobile devices? Upload the CSD section after you return from work.Andrew Base (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've never tried installing them on a mobile device - my honest answer is that I do not think that it is possible, and even if it were I'm not sure that the interface would translate well to a small touchscreen. You could try asking at the Helpdesk, but my feeling is that you will need a PC. If you find anything to the contrary, please let me know!
 * Huggle and Stiki are not a part of this course, but if you have any questions about their functionality while you get to grips with them, please feel free to ask and I will answer if I can - I do the bulk of my counter vandalism work with old-fashioned Twinkle and the recent changes feed, but I have a working familiarity with both of them and believe that they have an important place in the counter-vandalism eco-system. In the meantime, here's the rest of the CSD section... Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Does Huggle and Stiki work in laptop?Andrew Base (talk) 17:45, 13 September 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.

A user with the username "BobSucks" creates an article called "John Smith" that contains solely the following text: John Smith is the worst elementary school teacher on the planet.
 * Scenario 1

Tag under G3 and G10. The username also appears to be disruptive but not bad enough to report. If this user continues their behavior I will report to AIV as vandalism only account.

A user with the username "GoodTimesLLC" creates a user page with the following text: Good Times LLC is an organization dedicated to helping your children get the highest quality education at an affordable price. Visit our website at goodtimes.info and contact us at 123-456-7890.
 * Scenario 2

Tag under G11 (promotional userpage under a promotional username) would also report the username to UAA as promotional.

A user creates an article titled "Edward Gordon" with the following text: Edward Gordon (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 5,000 subscribers on YouTube.
 * Scenario 3

Tag under A7.

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. (Note: This is a modified version of a question that was asked at an old RfA. The answer isn't necessarily as simple as it might seem at first. Take a look at WP:AtD and try Google searching a few key terms from this short article.)
 * Scenario 4

After looking through Google, I discovered that he was involved in music industry and did work with Lemmie. He is also mentioned in the article The Nice. So I will setup a REDIRECT.

A user creates an article that was clearly copied and pasted directly from another website, which states "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom of it. Would your answer be the same if it didn't state "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom?
 * Scenario 5

Tag with CSD G12 in both cases.

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.
 * Scenario 6

I'll start by putting it into Google Translate. If it was vandalism or promotion I'll tag that page for deletion otherwise after identifying the language I'd compare with the relevant foreign language wikipedia. If the article was identical I'll tag that under A2 but if the text was substantially different I'd flag for translation.

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
 * Scenario 7

If they created it very recently I will wait to say if they were adding something different but if it is more than 30 minutes old I'll tag it with G7.

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?
 * Scenario 8

If the user creates a user page with this content I'll leave since it's their user space but if they transfer it as a main space article I'd tag it under G1.

I've finished this section.Andrew Base (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yes, these are all good answers. I realise by the way that my link above to WP:ATD had a typo in it - hopefully you found it anyway, but it's worth reading if you haven't already.
 * In reply to your question above, yes, Stiki and Huggle will both work on a laptop - I edit from a laptop using Windows 10. I generally edit using Microsoft Edge, occasionally Google Chrome, both work fine; Huggle and Stiki are stand-alone applications though, you need to install them separately. The next section is below. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  06:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One other comment occurs to me with regard to your answers above - if you use G11 (promotional user page under a promotional username), you don't need to report separately to UAA - the username violation is implicit in the 'promotional username' bit, the deleting administrator will usually block the username when they delete the page. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  06:54, 14 September 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 provides an even greater level of restriction, with only oversighters able to see the comments. The threshold between the two is quite fine - I've been on the wrong side of it a few times. If you are in doubt as to whether revdel or oversight is required, the best bet is to forward it to the oversight team - whoever reviews it will be able to make the decision and act on it.


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

If it's about copyright violation I'd use Copyvio-revdel to the article. If it's about personal attack or vandalism I would request an admin listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests for revdel.


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

I would contact an oversighter or email the oversight team from here.

I downloaded Huggle on my PC but after I give my username and password for log in it says that login failed (on en.wiki) authentication requires user interaction which is not supported by the action login. Can you help me?Andrew Base (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * These answers are correct; my advice to you if you are looking for an admin to do a revdel for you would be to use the revdel IRC channel Revdel/here - that usually gets the fastest response, and it avoids putting sensitive diffs on an admin's talk page (which often have lots of watchers). If it's revdel you're looking for, start your message with !admin, explain that you think something needs to be revdelled, and provide the diff. If you think that something needs oversight however, don't post the diff there - either e-mail it, as described above, or go onto the IRC channel and type !oversight and wait for an oversighter to private message you.
 * With regard to the Huggle problem, I haven't encountered that problem before - I was going to advise you to ask for help at the support page, but I see you already found your way there. I would repeat my advice that you start out with Stiki and get used to working with a diff browser before trying Huggle, but it's your call. If you jump straight into Huggle, just be careful not to allow the fast-paced nature of editing there to force you into making snap decisions - take your time, make sure you're certain before reverting.
 * Next section below... Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  08:35, 14 September 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 to scroll through quickly, and the link on my userpage takes you there directly). There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed: Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particluar attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.
 * Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia (words like admin, sysop etc), usernames that impersonate other people (either famous people, or other Wikipedians' usernames), or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
 * Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.
 * Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
 * Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.


 * 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

It could be an attempt too impersonate Bill Gates but it also could be a real name. I will look at their edits first if they are ok then I will leave the user alone but if their edits are concerning I will start a conversation with the user.
 * ✅ Good - this is potentially misleading, but it's not blatant enough to be actionable on its own. If they were editing articles about Microsoft, it would be worth a discussion with them; if they were obviously pretending to be Bill Gates, it would be worth reporting directly to UAA (including some diffs to their problematic editing), but if they are just editing normally then leave them alone.


 * LMedicalCentre

Promotional username but I will first look at their edits first if they are good contributions not promotional I’ll suggest the user to read WP:UPOL for changing the username but if the edits are promotional report to WP:UAA


 * G1rth Summ1t

Impersonating you report to UAA.


 * JoeAtBurgerKing

I would let them know about WP:COI and would check their editing history if they are requesting edits at articles connected with their company and not editing directly I will leave them alone.
 * ✅ Yes - this is permitted, but they would need to be careful - if they wanted to get involved in any articles related to their job, they would have to comply with COI by, for example, using talk page change requests rather than direct editing. The username itself is not a violation, since it identifies an individual at the company. (Note that it needs to be an individual person at the company who is identified, not a role - BurgerKingMarketing, or BurgerKingPR, would be violations, since they suggest that the person operating the account might change when staff change jobs.)


 * JoeTheSysop

Report to UAA for impersonating a sysop.


 * AndrewBase

Impersonating me report to UAA as misleading username.


 * FuckAllYouAssholes

Immediate report to UAA as offensive username.


 * Oshwaah

Report to UAA for impersonating.



Violation of WP:NOEMOJI I will notify the user and suggest them to read WP:UPOL for changing their username.
 * ✅ Yes - no emoji isn't actionable in and of itself. To be honest, if an editor with this username was editing sensibly and not causing anyone any problems, I'd probably just leave them alone. You would be at liberty to start a discussion about it if you wanted to, but you're not under any obligation to do so.

I have completed this section.Andrew Base (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Good work - see above. Next section below...

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 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 would email emergencywikimedia.org with details of threat and the diff. Then I would contact admins via IRC channel giving them the diff and leave them to deal with it appropriately,


 * 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)?

No matter how it looks I have to email an admin.

I have finished this section.Andrew Base (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is correct. You're almost done now, this is the last question apart from the final exam... Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  10:11, 14 September 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?

All these vandals want to be is recognized. The more attention we will give them the more they will vandalise so we just revert and give a warning. So we should not give this vandals much attention.


 * How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you? (Note - this is not a trick question, but it's not a straightforward one. Have a think about it, make your suggestions, and then we'll have a discussion. There isn't necessarily a clear right answer, but I'd be interested to know the factors you'd consider.)

Troll will always attack me personally no matter what it is. Sometimes it is best to avoid it. But a good faith editor will always avoid personal attacks on me. Some of them don’t even know our policy about avoiding all personal attacks. I will just give them a message with links to our policy against personal attacks. If the still continue to troll me I will recognise them as troll and will leave a message on WP:ANI.

I have finished this section.Andrew Base (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The first answer is correct. The second one is a bit simplistic - but there isn't really a straightforward right answer. Let me give you some advice - in the course of reverting other people's edits, you will inevitably irritate some people. Some of them will be vandals, whom we should simply revert and ignore; some of them will be good faith editors however, whom we should treat with respect. A good faith editor may come to your talk page in a bad mood because you reverted them - they may be rude. In that case, you should try to stay calm and polite - explain why you reverted them. By all means you should give links to policies where you think it would help, but try to be more helpful than just saying "You need to read RS" or similar - if you are friendly and helpful, they will likely calm down, and may end up thanking you for helping them. We should aim to give people help and guidance, especially with newbs, not to bite them. If personal attacks continue, and you end up having to go to ANI, it will be very much in your favour if you can show that you were the model of good behaviour when other people were attacking you.
 * The best way to determine whether someone is worth interacting with is not to look at what they have said on your talk page - look at their contribution history. It is normally possible to tell whether they are just here to troll, or whether they are trying to help but making honest mistakes. Ignore the trolls, help the floundering newbs.
 * So, congratulations - this is the end of the course. The final exam is below - go through the questions in your own time, and ping me when you're done. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  10:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Part 1

 * For each of these examples, please state whether you would call the edit(s) described as vandalism or good faith edit, a reason for that, and how you would deal with the situation (ensuring you answer the questions where applicable).
 * 1) 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?

I would do an AFG revert and give a level 1 test edit warning if they did it again I’d continue giving test edit warnings with increasing levels. If they continue despite getting multiple warnings I’d report that user to WP:AIV

2. 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?

As it is a single issue warning I can’t increase its level. However if they keep doing I would give them a warning if they keep doing it I will report them to ANI.
 * ✅ I'd probably suggest initially attempting a personal conversation on their talk page; if they didn't respond, disruptive editing warnings would probably be the best option, and either AIV or ANI could sort it out if they went past level 4.

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?

If the article is about John Smith or there was enough content to say who John Smith was then I would give them a level 1 NPOV warning. If it is a random article I would give test warning if they continue it will rise to vandalism warnings.

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

Test edit. I would give them a test edit warning but if they continue doing it I will raise the level and finally will report to AIV.

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 don’t think the summary “this is wrong” is enough to remove a sourced content. I would revert it with a summary ‘revert removal off unsourced content’ and give a delete1 warning to the user. If they still keep doing it I would report them to AIV.
 * Nine times out of ten this would likely be correct, but be careful with situations like this. I have seen situations where inexperienced users remove sourced content for good reasons, but they don't know about using edit summaries, so appear at first glance to be vandals. You need to check whether the sources are reliable, and whether they support the assertions that the user is removing - especially if the article is a BLP. Satisfy yourself that the material deserves to be in the article, because you are responsible for it if you revert the removal - controversial material sourced to tabloid newspapers or gossip websites, for example, needs to be removed. And remember - you are only exempt from 3RR for blatant vandalism - removing sourced content is often against policy, but it is not always blatant vandalism. Get other editors' attention, start a thread at BLPN or whatever, but don't just blindly revert unless you are very sure that it is vandalism.

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.

I would give them a delete1 warning.

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

Defamatory1 warning.
 * That would work, but uw-attempt2 is he better choice.

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

I would give the user a single issue “efsummary” warning.

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

Could be a personal attack. I’d give a level 1 vandalism warning.

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

Delete1 warning.

5. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

I would give them a disruptive or test level 1 warning. But if they mentioned something like ‘I made it better’ I would give a vandalism1 warning.

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

I would start with a test warning rising to vandalism if repeated if still not stopped I would report to AIV.

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

Biog1 warning,

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

4im warning.

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

Report to AIV.

10. 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).

Report straight to ANI since they had problems with me in the past.

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

Image1 warning.

Part 3
1. Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
 * What CSD tag you would put on the following articles? (The content below represents the entire content of the article).

G11 promotional

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

A7 no indication of importance

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

A1 no context

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

G3 hoax
 * ✅ This would work, or A11 (invented by author).

5. Fuck Wiki!

G10 attack page
 * ✅ (Note that attack page is G10 - I'm sure that was just a typo though and you would have selected the right option with Twinkle, so I'm not going to deduct marks). Technically, I think that's more of a G3 vandalism really - it's not really harassing an individual or group of individuals - but it would doubtless get deleted anyway if you stuck a G10 on there.

Part 4
1. TheMainStreetBand
 * 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).

If they make promotional edits I would report them to UAA.
 * ✅ Yes - only report if they are editing promotionally. If they were doing regular edits, I'd probably drop them a note about UNC, indicating that their username is probably against policy.

2. Fartypants

Silly username, most likely a vandalism only account so if they vandalise I would report to AIV but if they edit constructively I would leave them alone.
 * ✅ Yes, this is sill, but not bad enough to be actionable if they weren't vandalising.

3. Brian's Bot

Unless the account is in the bot usergroup I would report them to UAA as mislaeading username.

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

I don’t this account has been created to edit constructively the username is long and confusing. I would talk to the user first. If they don’t change and talk to me about it I would report to UAA.
 * ✅ It's very confusing - talking to them first is probably the better option though.

5. WikiAdmin

Report to UAA as misleading username.

6. 12:12, 23 June 2012

Copy paste of time stamp. I would warn the user about their username and ask them to change it since it violates our signature policy. If they don’t change I would report as a disruptive username.
 * ✅ Yes - I'd probably report this as soon as they started editing, it's hard to think of a good faith reason why someone would have chosen a username so intentionally like our timestamps. The previous example could be someone who just mashed the keyboard, not realising the importance of having a usable username - in this case someone has obviously gone to some effort to make their username intentionally confusing. In either case though, starting a conversation about it would be an acceptable starting point.

7. PMiller

It looks like a normal username if they edit constructively I would leave them alone.
 * ✅ Yes, there's nothing wrong with this one.

8. OfficialJustinBieber

Impersonating Justin Bieber. I would report as a misleading username.
 * ✅ Even if it is Justin Bieber himself, the account would be blocked, and he would need to provide evidence of his identity via OTRS before he would be allowed to use that username.

Part 5
1. Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
 * Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.

If it is a obvious vandalism that is not an edit war let WP:3RRNO, I had reverted pure vandalism more than 3 times in a day. However if it is not obvious vandalism there is a risk of getting involved in an edit war and possibly get blocked from editing per WP:3R. In the case of BLP if someone vandalises or puts an unsourced content we can revert as often as we need to. However if someone continues to save their preferred version on an article which is not obvious vandalism then they will get blocked for edit warring.
 * ✅ I'd add to this that it is quite easy to allow yourself to get drawn into an edit war if you're not careful. Always be prepared to step back and let others handle it (or seek assistance) unless you are certain that it is pure vandalism - Huggle makes it very easy indeed to revert people, and I've seen experienced patrollers have their accounts blocked for edit warring because they forget this simple rule.

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

I would report such accounts to WP:AIV if they continue to vandalise after receiving a level of 4 or 4im warnings.


 * 1) Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

Report to ANI, if it violates BLP policy report it to WP:BLPN.

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

WP:UAA

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

WP:ANI

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

WP:AN3 if the user has received edit warring warnings and a discussion on the article’s talk page has been started.

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

WP:BLPN. If it involves serious violations then report it at IRC Wikipedia revdel channel.

Hey Girth, I am done with my exam. Thank you for this course it was really helpful for me. Andrew Base (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * All good Andrew - you've passed, well done! I'll leave a notification on your talk page. It's been a pleasure dealing with you - if you even need any assistance with anything, or have any questions you want to ask, you're always welcome on my talk page. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  11:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey Girth, many users say that this course take 1 to 1.5 months but in my course it took only 8 days. Can you explain this?Andrew Base (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's about the amount of time you and I are each able to put into it. You've gone through it very quickly, but we were responding to each other rapidly; when I did the course, it would often be a few days before my trainer found time to check each of my updates and provide feedback, so it naturally took a few weeks to complete. Plus, you already had quite a bit of experience - you didn't need time to figure out how Twinkle and the Recent Changes feed work, you were already familiar with warning and reporting users, requesting page protection and so on - to be honest, apart from my initial concerns that you weren't assuming good faith quite readily enough, you seemed to know what you were doing already - I don't see any point in dragging this out and making it take longer than it needs to when you already know what to do. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  11:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Completion
''Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy, on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction and graduation from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with 97%. Well done!

As a graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox (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). :