User:Girth Summit/CVUA/DanCherek

Hello, 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) 16:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Communication

Twinkle
Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia, and it's the tool that we will use for the majority of this course (although we can talk about Huggle later on). I see that you have installed and started using Twinkle already.
 * Please read (or re-read) WP:TWINKLE, and leave a note here to confirm that you have read it, and tell me whether you have any questions before we proceed.
 * I have read Vandalism and WP:TWINKLE, and am ready to proceed! DanCherek (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Great. First question... Girth Summit  (blether)  16:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism
When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. While it is often necessary to revert such edits, we treat them differently from vandalism, so it is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the tasks in this section.


 * Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and discuss how you would tell them apart.
 * The difference between a good faith edit and vandalism is the editor's intention behind the edit. In making that edit, did the editor believe they were doing the right thing to improve Wikipedia as a source of knowledge? is the question I would ask myself in trying to determine whether an edit was made in good faith. Of course, my best guess would still only be a guess, so good faith would be assumed (especially if they have not been previously warned), except in the cases of blatant and seemingly intentional attempts to disrupt an article and/or introduce misinformation (e.g., inserting derogatory nicknames or repeatedly editing someone to be 15 feet tall).
 * this is correct - it's all about the intent. Determining intent is difficult, so what you need to ask yourself is whether there is any credible way that an edit could have been an accident, or a test, or simply misguided; if any of those are possible, then we assume good faith. If you just can't accept that it could have been good faith, only then do we treat it as vandalism. Let's look for some examples. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. You don't need to revert the example you find, and I am happy for you to use previous undos in your edit history if you wish. Place diffs below.
 * Examples below:
 * Good faith but unhelpful: diff1, diff2, diff3
 * Vandalism: diff1, diff2, diff3
 * —DanCherek (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yep - I agree with your assessments there. Next task below. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:01, 19 January 2021 (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.

Some users might not realize that they changes they make are immediately visible to everyone, and some may stop after they realize that further vandalism may result in a block. If they decide to start making productive contributions to articles, that's a good thing for Wikipedia, and if they stop editing completely, that's their prerogative, but a block should only be sought as a last resort if vandalism persists after repeated warnings.
 * Please answer the following questions:
 * Why do we warn users?
 * ✅ Yeah, that's a big part of it - the warnings provide users with links to relevant policies, and they also let them know that other people have seen what they are doing. It's important to give people the most relevant warning possible, especially for potentially good-faith mistakes. If a new editor comes along and doesn't understand our sourcing policies, we shouldn't whack them with the vandal stick - we give them relevant links and hope that they're willing to read and learn.

In cases of apparent bad faith with excessive, harmful vandalism (though personally, I haven't actually used this one ever before).
 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
 * ✅ So, there are two situations where a 4im is appropriate: repeated recent vandalism where they haven't yet been warned, and egregiously offensive stuff. If you see someone adding racist insults, or accusations of criminality to a BLP, 4im is the way to go.

Always substitue the template when using it on a user talk page, so that it can be converted to the underlying icon and text; that way the message won't change if something happens to the template.
 * 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!)
 * ✅ If you use Twinkle to add a template, you don't need to think about this, but if for any reason you find yourself adding one manually, remember to substitute it.

If a bot or another user has not already done so, report them to WP:AIV and note vandalism after final warning; potentially keep an eye on their contributions until an administrator handles the report.
 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * ✅ Yep - again, use the Twinkle menu for this, it makes it much easier to submit the report!

Question from me: in the past, I've always started from a level 1 warning and gone up from there (it seems like that's a pretty common thing to do among RC patrollers too), but in reading the guide, it sounds like the bad-faith ones, like the examples I gave above, should start with at least a level 2 warning. Any thoughts on this? I'm wondering about the purpose of uw-vandalism1 if "vandalism" already implies bad faith. (I did judiciously use uw-test1 for the nonsense edits too.) DanCherek (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So, I'll say a guarded 'yes' to this, but use your judgement. If someone adds "This cheese stinks like poo" to the lead of Brie, it's obviously bad faith, but it doesn't warrant more than a Level 1 warning for a first offense. If they've already made similar edits recently but nobody has warned them (check their talk page edit history, they may have blanked warnings), feel free to escalate. If you see someone adding seriously offensive hate speech however, go straight to 4im. Does that make sense? More below... Girth Summit  (blether)  17:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Blanking
Sometimes during your patrolling for vandalism, you'll come across an edit that removes most, if not all, of the content from an article or section. It's easy to simply revert, warn, and continue on, but actually, these kind of edits usually require even more attention than the average malicious edit. Accidentally reverting helpful blanking is one of the main pitfalls that newer vandalism patrollers can fall into, so in order to avoid this situation, please read the following pages and answer the questions.

Before you answer these questions, it may be helpful to read WP:BLANK, WP:CR, and this user essay.

How could a blanking edit be helpful?

Blanking might be performed if the entirety of an article is copied from copyrighted material, or if a biography of a living person consists of unsourced libel and/or a privacy violation. Blanking might also be done as part of the article merging process, once content from one article has been appropriately added to the other.

What are some of the main things to look for in an edit that blanks a lot of text?

Trying to determine whether the editor was attempting to improve the article, so checking whether they left an edit summary describing the reason for blanking; seeing if the blanking was replaced with anything (like profanity); checking the user's talk page and contributions to see if they have a history of problematic edits; checking what exactly was blanked and whether it was reliable sourced; checking to see if there was discussion of the topic on the article's talk page.

Please find three examples of an edit that blanks content, and explain why they are either good or bad.


 * Example 1 - bad. No reason was given in the edit summary; nothing in the article appears to suggest that blanking should be performed (e.g. no libel or privacy violations); user contributions show history of attempting to remove various sections of the article without explanation.
 * ✅ Yep - that just blanks the entire page, definitely revert.
 * Example 2 - fine. The edit summary suggests that a move is being manually performed, so right off the bat it doesn't appear to be vandalism. The user left an explanatory note on the talk page before this edit, and the specified target page confirms that the deleted material was moved there. Also, a quick once-over of the user's page strongly suggests a long-term editor who is here to positively contribute to Wikipedia. There might be some remaining page attribution concerns; there should probably be some indication that the blanked page should not be deleted to preserve the history.
 * ✅ I haven't looked into whether there was consensus for the merge/redirect, but it's definitely not vandalism, and the resulting redirect takes the reader to a relevant article, so nothing is jumping out as problematic for me.
 * Example 3 - good. This followed the procedure for a suspected copyright violation, the copyvio template was used, and the edit summary indicated the potential copyright violation (and, the blanking user is an admin, not that that automatically gives a free pass, but it's extremely likely they know what they're doing).
 * ✅ Yep - copyvios are removed on sight.

Your explanations of the warning templates above made sense, thanks! DanCherek (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - this is all good stuff. The thing to stress about removals is to be careful. I mean, if someone blanks the entire page like in your first example, or if it looks like someone has randomly grabbed a bunch of sections and hit delete, then revert of course. If someone has removed a specific paragraph or sentence however, and been careful not to damage the rest of the article, then it's not vandalism. It might be POV/whitewashing, but it's not vandalism, so take time to check: is it sourced? Is it reliably sourced? Do the sources actually support the assertions? Is it WP:DUE? If you think the material was OK, then revert, but be prepared to explain your position on the talk page if needs be. I have seen experienced patrollers get hauled up in front of ANI to explain why they were reinstating BLP violations: 'it was sourced' doesn't cut it as an excuse if you haven't actually read the source to discover whether or not it actually supported the content, for example. People ought ideally to leave an edit summary when they remove stuff, but we can't expect everyone to know that - it's down to us to check what they're doing.
 * I'll add the next section later on. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK - next task below.  Girth Summit  (blether)  13:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Example patrolling

 * 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've completed the above table! DanCherek (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Girth, just wanted to check in here and see if there's anything specific I should be doing in the meantime or just hang tight (which is fine!). Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey - sorry, I've been a bit distracted. No there's nothing in particular you should be doing right now in terms of this course, I just need to make time to finish reviewing these. Should have some time this pm. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  12:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, that all looks good, let's move onto page protection... Girth Summit  (blether)  15:36, 27 January 2021 (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 if it is experiencing a high level of vandalism from multiple IP accounts and/or new (non-autoconfirmed) users. It should not be semi-protected if just one editor is making disruptive changes (in that case the user should be warned and reported to AIV if neessary). If an edit war is taking place with all involved parties being unregistered or non-autoconfirmed users, the page may also be semi-protected. Pages should not be semi-protected pre-emptively, only potentially after a significant amount of disruption has occurred.


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

The circumstanges for pending changes protection are similar to those listed above for semi-protection (i.e., high levels of disruption from multiple IPs or non-autoconfirmed users), but specifically for articles that don't usually experience a high edit rate. It's less frequently used than semi-protection; the reason it should not be applied to frequently edited articles is that a pending change will cause a backlog from all subsequent edits to the article (only the latest accepted version will be shown to non-logged-in users).


 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Pretty rarely. Pages can be fully protected in cases where multiple extended-confirmed users are disrupting the page or edit warring over particularly contentious content (i.e., where extended-confirmed protection would not resolve the issue). For example, Kellyanne Conway was recently fully protected, pending the discussion of a sensitive BLP issue on the article's talk page.


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

Creation protection should be applied if users repeatedly attempt to create a deleted page and we want to prevent future versions from being created in the first place, to avoid having to go through the deletion process again. For example I like big BUTTS, that I can't deny. was repeatedly created and deleted in 2007 before it was salted; since there is no need to create the article in the foreseeable future, preventing uesrs from creating it again saves everyone time (and an administrator can always un-protect it if need be).


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

Article talk pages are almost never protected, as that's where any user, including unregistered ones, should be able to go to discuss article improvements. Article talk pages can be semi-protected for a limited duration if they are experiencing very extreme vandalism. Users may request semi-protection of their talk pages if the talk page is expeirencing high levels of vandalism or disruption.


 * 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 of request - I requsted semi-protection of McLean, Virginia because it experienced disruption from four different IPs/users in the past day (again with the "notable residents" schtick). An administrator subsequently semi-protected the article for four days.

I have two quick questions:
 * Do you ever do any counter-vandalism work from Special:AbuseFilter? The recent changes feed keeps me busy, but sometimes I see talk page warnings for repeatedly triggering the edit filter, so I was wondering if this was also commonly monitored.
 * I'm still trying to get a feel for when to request semi-protection. I read the bit about percentages at WP:SEMIGUIDE but it still feels a little hand-wavy to me. In your opinion, would "vandalism from three or more distinct IP ranges and/or users within the past day" be a reasonable general rule of thumb, absent page-specific considerations?

Thanks and see above! (And didn't mean to rush you before - I know you help out a lot of people in a lot of places on here and I'm grateful that you make time for CVUA, so please take all the time you need. I'll be more patient!) DanCherek (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, the answers above are correct, and your RfPP report was clearly valid.
 * To address your questions:
 * I don't regularly monitor abuse filters myself, but I'll occasionally dip my toe in under particular circumstances - I've been looking in on filter 1112 in recent days because of the notable people nonsense, but generally speaking recent changes is enough to keep me busy. (You'll see a link on my userpage though to recent changes, filtered by the 'self-promotion' tag - I find that is useful for picking up a lot of spam).
 * Protection - it is slightly woolly I'm afraid, but I think your rule of thumb is a reasonable one - obvious vandalism from three separate ranges within a day or two would be enough for me to protect a page.
 * Next up below... Girth Summit  (blether)  10:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.


 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

A page should be speedy deleted if, and only if, it meets at least one of the strictly-defined criteria for speedy deletion. This is for cases where the reason for deletion is obvious and that do not need to undergo AfD. Pages should only be speedy deleted if all revisions of that page meet the criterion.

Examples:
 * G1: A mainspace page that entirely consists of keysmashing "djaflsfjsadfkajsfhkjsdfs"
 * G2: A mainspace page that only contains "This is a test. Bold italic strike "
 * G3: An article that claims that drinking almond milk causes COVID-19
 * G4: Someone recreates Paul Stephen (Canadian actor) that is identical to the deleted page
 * G5: Someone with an AP2 topic ban has a sockpuppet that creates an article on a current member of the San Jose city council
 * G6: The first article I created, Mike Sprayberry, already had a redirect page to James M. Sprayberry, so the redirect was G6'd before my draft was moved
 * G7: If I wanted to delete Nellah Massey Bailey
 * G8: pretty straightforward, e.g. a talk page of a deleted subject page
 * G9: ~secret~
 * G10: If someone creates an article about their professor and baselessly accuses them of favoritism
 * G11: An article that only contains "My restaurant serves the most delicious lasagna in the world. Make your reservation today!"
 * G12: An article about the book The Fowl Twins whose only content is the first chapter of the book, with no salvageable history
 * G13: pretty straightforward, any draft not edited in six months
 * G14: A disambiguation page titled "Miley Cyrus (disambiguation)" that only points to the Miley Cyrus article.
 * A1: An article that only contains "She was a high school chemistry teacher."
 * A2: An article that is a word-for-word untranslated copy of fr:Paul Tornow
 * A3: An article titled "Michael Polansky" whose only content is "I would like to get in touch with Michael Polansky"
 * A5: An article that only contains "Poltophagy is defined as the chewing of food long enough to reduce it to the consistency of porridge."
 * A7: An article that only contains "Dan Cherek is a Wikipedian who lives in the United States."
 * A9: An article that only contains "'Wikipedian Rhapsody' is a 2021 song recorded by American singer Dan Cherek."
 * A10: An article titled "Boe Jiden" that is a word-for-word copy of the existing article on Joe Biden
 * A11: An article that only contains "Polf is a sport that is similar to golf, except the golf ball is replaced with a ping-pong ball."

I made up some examples for the general/article critera. Let me know if you're looking for anything else for this question! DanCherek (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Extra question: I've nominated two pages for speedy deletion during my time on Wikipedia (User:DanCherek/CSD log), both as G11 because it seemed like they were using their user pages as unambiguous promotion/advertising. They were subsequently speedy deleted by an admin in both cases but as U5 (web host). I think I'm not fully getting the distinction between the two. DanCherek (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow - you've done your homework here! Yes, these are pretty good descriptions of the various criteria (nice work on Nellah Massey Bailey by the way!). The underlying thing that brings them all together under the 'CSD' banner though is that it is bloody obvious that it does not belong on Wikipedia, and nobody who understands our purpose could reasonably disagree on that. If it's possible that there could be differing views, then AfD is the way to go, to allow discussion; the CSD criteria are an imperfect way of trying to crystallise and categorise the various sorts of completely unacceptable pages that you might come across.
 * To address your extra question: there is a lot of overlap between G11 and U5 (if you look at my RfA, I shared some thoughts on this in one of the additional questions). G11 is an area where I've observed different editors (including admins) have different thresholds - one person's obvious promotion is another person's inexperienced exuberance. U5, however, is quite unequivocal - if you are putting a CV on your userpage, it's probably G11, but it's definitely U5, so I think a lot of admins prefer to err on the side of caution and delete under U5 to avoid any risk of being challenged. Don't see the change from G11 to U5 as any kind of criticism of yourself - that's just housekeeping on the admin's side, if there was an issue with your tagging they'd let you know.
 * The next task is below... Girth Summit  (blether)  19:55, 3 February 2021 (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


 * This is an attack page that violates the policy on biographies of living persons, so I would tag it for speedy deletion under the G10 criterion. The username isn't ideal but it's ambiguous enough (Bob who?) that it doesn't warrant reporting to UAA.
 * ✅ Yep, it's an attack page. The username is, as you say, rather ambiguous, but I'd take a look at their contribs - chances are they will be vandalising elsewhere, and would be blocked as vandalism-only.

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


 * I would tag it for speedy deletion under the U5 criterion (it would also fall under G11, since it explicitly tells people to visit their website and to call them). The username "GoodTimesLLC" indicates shared use so I would report to UAA as well.
 * ✅ Yep. U5 would work. Twinkle gives you an option to report as promo userpage under a promo username, which is what I would personally recommend for something like this. (For me, if you get into talking about pricing, and have a call to action in the imperative mood (visit our website), it's unambiguously a G11.

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


 * I would not tag this for speedy deletion because it does not explicitly meet any of the criteria. Specifically, it makes a credible claim of why its subject might be notable (albums + subscribers). Whether the subject is actually notable would depend on the extent of his coverage in reliable sources, and any potential deletion of the article would be a matter for BLPPROD and/or AFD.
 * So, for me this is an A7. It is arguably the most subjective of the criteria though, so you're right to err on the side of caution. If we look at whether any of the assertions are WP:SIGNIF claims: starred in school plays is a fail; anyone can publish albums on a self-publishing site, so that's a fail; so we come down to YouTube subs. There is no objective standard that these are judged by, and mileage varies, but I've never seen anyone argue that a value in the single-figure thousands approaches SIGNIF. I'd expect this to be deleted as A7. You're right to consider a BLP prod for an unsourced bio, but bear in mind the strict requirement that there be no external links to any sources regardless of their quality - if there was a link to their SoundCloud site, this would fail the BLPPROD criteria, despite being (in my view) an obvious 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. (Attribution: came up with this scenario as a question to an old RfA candidate. I've borrowed his example here. Hint: Try Google searching a few key terms from this short article.)
 * Scenario 4


 * The Nice, which came up in a Google search of "Bazz Ward", indeed mentions a roadie named Bazz Ward as well as Lemmy, so this does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. I would probably replace the page with a redirect to The Nice (or ) so that anyone who searches for Bazz Ward can get to that information.
 * ✅ Perfect answer - yes, this would be a good redirect. The only reason it doesn't exist as a redirect is to allow me to ask this question - please don't create it! (That said, if anyone created it in good faith, I'd be forced to think of another question because it would be entirely valid.)

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


 * I would tag it for speedy deletion under the G12 criterion, because it is unambiguous copyright infringement, and I would provide the link to the original website in the tag. If the website did not state "All Rights Reserved", I would still tag it for speedy deletion because Wikipedia's copyright policy states that "the absence of a copyright notice does not mean that a work may be freely used."
 * ✅ Yep - we assume copyright unless there is an explicit (and policy-compliant) statement licensing us to use the content.

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


 * If I can determine that an identical copy of the article exists on another Wikimedia project, I would tag it for speedy deletion under the A2 criterion, but only in that specific case. Otherwise, it would not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. I would instead add Not English to the top of the article.

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


 * Per WP:G7, an author blanking a mainspace article that they created can be taken as a deletion request, so I would tag this for speedy deletion under the G7 criterion, as long as they are the only contributor.

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


 * Because it is a user page, it would not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion, including G1, which excludes the user namespace. If it was in any other namespace, it would be eligible for speedy deletion under the G1 criterion because it is gibberish.
 * ✅ Yep - if you want gibberish on your userpage, that's your choice. Anywhere else, feel free to tag.

Answers above! Best, DanCherek (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great answers . The next task is below... Girth Summit  (blether)  20:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision Deletion and Oversight
Please read WP:Revdel and WP:Oversight.

Occasionally, vandalism will be so extreme that it needs to be removed from publicly accessible revision histories - the criteria for these are described in the policies linked above. Revision deletion hides the edit from anyone except admins; oversight provides an even greater level of restriction, with only oversighters able to see the comments. The threshold between the two is quite fine - I've been on the wrong side of it a few times. If you are in doubt as to whether revdel or oversight is required, the best bet is to forward it to the oversight team - whoever reviews it will be able to make the decision and act on it.


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

There are a few options. If it needs to be revision deleted due to copyright infringement, I would place Copyvio-revdel at the top of the page, specifying the source URL and the revision range that needs to be deleted. For other purposes (grossly offensive or malicious material), I would email an administrator in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests or post on IRC in the #wikipedia-en-revdel channel.


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

The fastest way would be to email the oversight team at Special:EmailUser/Oversight (or oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org). If an oversighter is available on IRC, they might respond to typing "!oversight" in #wikipedia-en-revdel (after which the request should be made in a private chat). Emailing an oversighter directly could work, but probably wouldn't be as fast as the above methods. —DanCherek (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Crikey, time flies - sorry I left this so long. These answers are correct - in my pre-admin experience, the IRC channel was the best bet for revdel, there's usually someone available (I hang around there myself sometimes). Oversight via IRC is more hit and miss - I'm not an oversighter, so when I need oversight I usually drop into IRC but perhaps 50% of the time there aren't any online, so I just send an e-mail.
 * The next section shouldn't be too much of a challenge for you, since I see you've been showing up at UAV already, but let's take a look anyway... Girth Summit  (blether)  17:10, 9 February 2021 (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 particular 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

No action needed. There are many B. Gates in the world and real names are allowed. If they are claiming to be Bill Gates though, then report to UAA as a misleading username because impersonating famous people is not allowed.
 * ✅ You've nailed it - this could easily be a realname, or it could be intentional impersonation - the only way to know is to look at the edits.


 * LMedicalCentre

If they are making productive edits not related to health or medicine, then use Uw-username to encourage changing their username as it still violates the shared-use part of the username policy (but does not require an immediate block). If they are making medicine-related edits, or promoting a medical center, or directly editing an article like Ljubljana Medical Centre, report to UAA as a promotional/shared-use username.
 * ✅, with prejudice towards reporting. If it was 'LMedical', it could easily be explained away as someone called Louise or Larry, with an interest in medical topics; adding the word 'centre' makes it harder to see as anything other than an obvious reference to an organisation. 99% of the time they will be editing promotionally, so report. Having said that, has been getting away with that for years, so it's always worth checking that they are indeed writing about an organisation of that name.


 * G1rth Summ1t

Report to UAA as a disruptive username for impersonating you. Not really any other explanation for having that username.
 * ✅ This one is made up, but there are real ones out there along those lines based on my username. If you carry on with CV work, you are likely to attract the attention of trolls - don't engage, just report.


 * JoeAtBurgerKing

No action needed with respect to the username, as it does not imply shared use because it identifies the individual (Joe). Potential COI issue if they're promotionally editing Burger King, but not an issue for UAA.
 * ✅ Yep - not a violation, but an obvious COI. Report to WP:COIN if editing promotionally, leave them alone if they're following the guidelines.


 * JoeTheSysop

Report to UAA as a misleading username because it implies that the user is an administrator.


 * DanChereck

Wait at first, as it's a plausible real name, unless they start doing something that indicates it was created to impersonate me (I feel like that would be made obvious fairly quickly), in which case report to UAA as a misleading username.
 * ✅ You're right to be cautious, but keep an eye on it (or ask someone else to) - as I said, CV editors often attract the attention of trolls, this would likely be someone trying to harass you. Don't let them get under your skin, ask me or another admin to have a look if you want.


 * D0naldTrump

Report to UAA as a misleading username for impersonating Donald Trump (and if he happens to be this poor guy and submits an unblock request asking to keep the username, policy would allow it if he states on his user page that he is, in fact, not the former president).
 * ✅ Yep - the impersonation block notice is quite polite, and explains the reasons why accounts like that raise eyebrows. If it is their real name, they won't have a problem getting unblocked via an e-mail to OTRS.


 * FuckAllYouAssholes

I'd say in 99.9 percent of cases like this, I would look at their edits and see vandalism and/or disruption, and report to UAA as a disruptive username. I could imagine a rare scenario where it could have been created in good faith (e.g., quoting Full Metal Jacket), and they're making genuinely productive contributions. But the username would still need to be changed, so I would use Uw-username.
 * ✅ TBH, I'd block that on sight - that username is sufficiently offensive to be blockable even if it is a reference to a film. There are different views on this - see this recent discussion for a flavour on the different views.



Usernames containing emojis are disallowed per WP:NOEMOJI but doesn't require an immediate block, so use Uw-username to ask them to change their username. Take it to WP:RFCN if this doesn't resolve it.

See answers above. User:Beeblebrox/rough guide to username blocks has been helpful to me. Also, someone at User scripts/Requests helped me make a script that adds a button to the user creation log that can hide users with zero edits. It's been massively useful for patrolling! Best, DanCherek (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great answers. Interesting idea about that script - I might have a play with it. Next section below... Girth Summit  (blether)  18:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Emergencies
I hope this never happens, but as you participate in counter-vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible that you may come across a threat of physical harm. In the past, we have had vandals submit death threats in Wikipedia articles, as well as possible suicide notes. The problem is, Wikipedia editors don't have the proper training to evaluate whether these threats are credible in most cases.

Fortunately, there's a guideline for cases like this. Please read 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 Foundation at Special:EmailUser/Emergency or emergency@wikimedia.org, as well as an administrator privately via IRC #wikipedia-en-revdel or email, with details of the threat and a 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)?

Proceed similarly (as detailed above) whether or not the threat appears to be serious; that determination will be made by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Yeesh. Have not encountered this but glad to learn about what should be done in those situations! DanCherek (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep - e-mail Emergencies, and report to admins on IRC for them to pick it up. I've had to do this a handful of times, it's not that common but it does crop up. Next section below... Girth Summit  (blether)  11:28, 15 February 2021 (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?

In most cases, recognition is what they seek, and will only encourage them further. If they're quietly reverted, reported, and blocked, they will most likely get bored and/or demotivated, and stop their trolling or vandalism (at least for a while). For example, almost all of the TikTok "notable people" memers have been reverted and blocked without much ado. I found, via Twitter search, some people who participated, and they just complained about it and gave up (e.g.,  ). On the other hand, if we had made specialized TikTok response templates and written up a fancy essay describing the specific incident in detail, they would have crowed about it and spread it even further across social media.


 * 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.)

First, if someone asks why I reverted an edit, I'd go back and familiarize myself with the edit in question and check whether it should have been reverted in the first place.If someone adds information to an article and it gets reverted and they come to my talk page and ask why, I think I'd tend to err on the side of good faith, as I did here and here. I acknowledge that in both of those cases, neither user made another edit after writing to me, so maybe they weren't here for the right reasons, but I feel like it's no big deal to hit up those people with a quick pointer to WP:RS. A couple of times I've gone to the earliest archives of now-experienced editors, just out of curiosity, and many of them were getting templated at first too, so a little good faith can go a long way. This applies to cases where the original edit was not vandalism, or maybe borderline (I would put additions of non-notable people in the borderline category). As I see it, a troll is deliberately trying to get a rise out of someone. Asking a question ("why was my edit reverted?") that has a simple answer (e.g., "it wasn't supported by reliable sources") usually does not provoke the kind of reaction that a troll would be looking for.On messages that do not deserve a response: if someone is actively vandalizing (like spamming an article with the word "poop" or something) and they come to my talk page and ask why they're being reverted, that would not merit a response, obviously. But there are cases of non-vandalism where this applies too: I recently got this message on my talk page after reverting their edit (they had been twice-reverted and warned by others for the same on another account). It was clearly designed to elicit an indignant response from me, and they may have continued to engage had I replied. Titling a section "You're not that important" and asking "No offense but who do you think you are"—there's not really a way to engage with that without sounding either patronizing, angry, or upset (even though I was none of those), and that was the kind of back-and-forth I was trying not to be drawn into.

See above! DanCherek (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a really strong answer . You're right - vandals and trolls are often hoping to get a response, the worst thing you can do is get into an argument with them, it's giving them exactly what they want. Far better to completely just revert, block and ignore.
 * The challenge is balancing that approach with AGF, and you need to go back to the edits. Something that a lot of people think is that politeness is a factor here, but it's really not a good indicator - a good faith editor who gets reverted will often be pissed off that you've undone their work, and they may not act optimally when they turn up on your talk page. A troll might be rude, but they might just as easily be nice as pie in the hopes of confusing you and wasting more of your time - talk page attitude often doesn't tell you very much. Far better to go back to the edits, and ask yourself if there's any way you can see it as good faith. If you can, ignore any rudeness and just explain politely why you reverted - or, if you decide you were mistaken (it happens to all of us), apologise and self-revert. If you are certain that they are an outright vandal however, just report them to AIV and ignore.
 * OK - you have now been through all of the relevant parts of the course. There is a section on rollback, but you already have the permission and I don't doubt that you have read the guidance, so I think we can gloss over that. The final exam is below - please go through it at your own rate, and ping me when you're done. I'd wish you luck, but based on your answers throughout the course I very much doubt that this will give you any trouble! Girth Summit  (blether)  09:30, 16 February 2021 (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?
 * Good faith edit because it's just random characters and does not demonstrate clear intent to disrupt the article (maybe their cat walked across the keyboard and they accidentally hit "publish"). I would revert the edit and leave the Uw-test1 message to let them know about the sandbox, or perhaps the Welcometest message if they're a new registered account. If they had done the same thing once before, I would leave the Uw-test2 message on their talk page. If they continue after successive warnings have been given, I would proceed with Uw-test3, Uw-test4, and AIV.
 * 1) 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?
 * Good faith edit—again, can't be interpreted as an intentional attempt to disrupt. Manual signatures are pretty unique to Wikipedia, so not surprising if a new user makes signature-related errors. If they were otherwise editing productively, I'd manually remove the signature and write a quick note on their talk page to thank them for the edit and explain the difference between articles and talk pages; if they continued, I would try their talk page a few more times before asking an admin or going to ANI. If they were just adding their signature and nothing else, I'd revert and proceed with Uw-test2, Uw-test3, etc. as above.
 * 1) 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 a John Smith or related to a John Smith in any way, I'd treat it as good faith because it seems like they just want to say something nice about someone they know or are a fan of. I'd revert and leave the Uw-npov1 message (or Welcomenpov for a new registered account), and continue with Uw-npov2, Uw-npov3, and so on as needed. Otherwise, for unrelated articles, it doesn't seem likely that they're trying to improve the article, so I'd start with Uw-vandalism1 (which is worded gently enough), and increase the level as necessary.
 * 1) A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
 * Good faith edit, could just be trying to see if they can indeed edit an article. I would follow the same steps as outlined in the answer to #1 above, as this seems to be an editing test. So, revert the edit and leave the Uw-test1 or Welcometest message to inform them that they can test in their sandbox, and Uw-test2 and up if they continue.
 * 1) 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?
 * Clearly not vandalism—they indicate that they believe the removed information is incorrect and are therefore attempting to improve the article by their standards. I would proceed with caution, especially in the case of a BLP. If I checked the removed information and confirmed that it was reliably sourced and neutrally written without any apparent issues, I would revert and leave a note on their talk page explaining why the information was fine to include and that they should start a discussion to gain consensus for removal. (For that given edit summary, the Uw-delete1 and Welcome-delete templates seem a bit impersonal). If they reverted back, I would be very worried about a potential edit war brewing, so I would continue to try to engage in discussion rather than revert them once again. I don't see a difference based on the user's past contributions. An edit war is an edit war, so only the reverts to the article in question, which seem to be made in good faith based on the edit summary, are in consideration.
 * Good faith edit, could just be trying to see if they can indeed edit an article. I would follow the same steps as outlined in the answer to #1 above, as this seems to be an editing test. So, revert the edit and leave the Uw-test1 or Welcometest message to inform them that they can test in their sandbox, and Uw-test2 and up if they continue.
 * 1) 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?
 * Clearly not vandalism—they indicate that they believe the removed information is incorrect and are therefore attempting to improve the article by their standards. I would proceed with caution, especially in the case of a BLP. If I checked the removed information and confirmed that it was reliably sourced and neutrally written without any apparent issues, I would revert and leave a note on their talk page explaining why the information was fine to include and that they should start a discussion to gain consensus for removal. (For that given edit summary, the Uw-delete1 and Welcome-delete templates seem a bit impersonal). If they reverted back, I would be very worried about a potential edit war brewing, so I would continue to try to engage in discussion rather than revert them once again. I don't see a difference based on the user's past contributions. An edit war is an edit war, so only the reverts to the article in question, which seem to be made in good faith based on the edit summary, are in consideration.
 * Clearly not vandalism—they indicate that they believe the removed information is incorrect and are therefore attempting to improve the article by their standards. I would proceed with caution, especially in the case of a BLP. If I checked the removed information and confirmed that it was reliably sourced and neutrally written without any apparent issues, I would revert and leave a note on their talk page explaining why the information was fine to include and that they should start a discussion to gain consensus for removal. (For that given edit summary, the Uw-delete1 and Welcome-delete templates seem a bit impersonal). If they reverted back, I would be very worried about a potential edit war brewing, so I would continue to try to engage in discussion rather than revert them once again. I don't see a difference based on the user's past contributions. An edit war is an edit war, so only the reverts to the article in question, which seem to be made in good faith based on the edit summary, are in consideration.

Part 2

 * Which templates warning would give an editor in the following scenarios. If you don't believe a template warning is appropriate outline the steps (for example what you would say) you would take instead.
 * 1) A user blanks Cheesecake.
 * Uw-blank1
 * 1) A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
 * Uw-attempt1
 * 1) A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
 * Uw-efsummary
 * 1) A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
 * Uw-vandalism1
 * 1) A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
 * Uw-blank1
 * 1) A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
 * Uw-test1
 * 1) A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
 * Uw-vandalism1
 * 1) A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
 * I would take 15 seconds to do a quick Google search and see if any reliable sources are reporting breaking news of Henman's arrest; if so, I would go ahead and add the source. Otherwise, Uw-biog1
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
 * Uw-delete4im
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
 * Report to AIV for vandalism after final warning
 * 1) 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).
 * Given that it seems to be described as a chronic behavioral problem and they haven't already been blocked for previous instances of obvious vandalism, this seems like an issue for WP:ANI.
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * Uw-test1 with a note in the "Optional message" field that they uploaded the default example image
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
 * Uw-delete4im
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
 * Report to AIV for vandalism after final warning
 * 1) 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).
 * Given that it seems to be described as a chronic behavioral problem and they haven't already been blocked for previous instances of obvious vandalism, this seems like an issue for WP:ANI.
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * Uw-test1 with a note in the "Optional message" field that they uploaded the default example image
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * Uw-test1 with a note in the "Optional message" field that they uploaded the default example image
 * Uw-test1 with a note in the "Optional message" field that they uploaded the default example image

Part 3

 * What CSD tag you would put on the following articles? (The content below represents the entire content of the article).
 * 1) Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
 * Db-promo, G11 for blatant promotion
 * 1) Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
 * Db-person, A7 for no indication of importance
 * 1) Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
 * Db-nocontext, A1 for no context provided
 * 1) A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
 * Db-hoax, G3 for blatant hoax as a Google search indicates there is no such thing
 * 1) Fuck Wiki!
 * Db-vandalism, G3 for vandalism
 * Db-hoax, G3 for blatant hoax as a Google search indicates there is no such thing
 * 1) Fuck Wiki!
 * Db-vandalism, G3 for vandalism
 * Db-vandalism, G3 for vandalism

Part 4

 * Are the following new (logged in) usernames violations of the username policy? Describe why or why not and what you would do about it (if they are a breach).
 * 1) TheMainStreetBand
 * Violates the username policy because it's promotional and implies shared use. If they are posting or attempting to post about the band, I would report to UAA. If they're making unrelated edits, I would leave the Uw-username message and explain that usernames that represent the names of groups or organizations are disallowed.
 * 1) Fartypants
 * I wouldn't consider this a violation of the username policy—it's not that bad—so no actions with respect to the username, and if they were making vandalistic edits I would proceed as usual with reverting and warning.
 * 1) Brian's Bot
 * I would check whether this is an approved bot that is being developed. If not, this is a violation of the username policy because it could mislead people into thinking that they were a bot account. I would leave the Uw-username message and explain that usernames that imply a bot account are disallowed; new users are likely not aware of this aspect of the policy. (I wouldn't report to UAA immediately, though DeltaQuadBot would.)
 * 1) sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
 * Borderline case (see WP:UNCONF)—it's not misleading, disruptive, offensive, promotional, or implying shared use, but it's super long and confusing. I wouldn't report to UAA as it's not a blatant violation of the username policy (though DeltaQuadBot would, for going over 40 characters). If they were vandalizing I would proceed with reverting and warning, but otherwise I might drop a friendly note explaining that it's confusing and encouraging them to pick a simpler username, but not really anything more to do beyond that.
 * 1) WikiAdmin
 * Volates the username policy because it misleads people into thinking they're a sysop, so report to UAA.
 * 12:12, 23 June 2012
 * This is a problematic username, as their signed posts would look like "Blah blah 12:12, 23 June 2012 (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)". It's potentially disruptive, but not really "disruptive" as defined by WP:DISRUPTNAME, so I think this is another case of WP:UNCONF. I would leave the Uw-username message and firmly ask them to change the username, and take it to WP:RFCN if it's not resolved.
 * 1) PMiller
 * Not a violation of the username policy because real names are permitted so no issues at all, unless they're claiming to be someone like Patrick Miller or Paula Miller and directly editing those articles, in which case report to UAA for impersonation.
 * 1) OfficialJustinBieber
 * Violates the username policy because it implies that they are the actual Justin Bieber, so report to UAA for impersonation.
 * (Note: none of these usernames are particularly egregious enough to warrant action if they have not edited or attempted to edit at all.)
 * 1) PMiller
 * Not a violation of the username policy because real names are permitted so no issues at all, unless they're claiming to be someone like Patrick Miller or Paula Miller and directly editing those articles, in which case report to UAA for impersonation.
 * 1) OfficialJustinBieber
 * Violates the username policy because it implies that they are the actual Justin Bieber, so report to UAA for impersonation.
 * (Note: none of these usernames are particularly egregious enough to warrant action if they have not edited or attempted to edit at all.)
 * Violates the username policy because it implies that they are the actual Justin Bieber, so report to UAA for impersonation.
 * (Note: none of these usernames are particularly egregious enough to warrant action if they have not edited or attempted to edit at all.)
 * (Note: none of these usernames are particularly egregious enough to warrant action if they have not edited or attempted to edit at all.)

Part 5

 * Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.
 * 1) Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
 * Not in cases of obvious vandalism, which is exempt from 3RR per WP:NOT3RR. That policy limits the exemption to cases in which "any well-intentioned user" would agree that the edit in question constituted vandalism. For instance, I reverted someone 24 times at the Hinokitiol article until they were blocked, but that was a clear and deliberate attempt to insert dangerous information into the article, so it was exempt from the edit-warring policy. In more subtle borderline cases, one needs to proceed with caution, as repeatedly reverting an unhelpful edit that doesn't meet the standard described above could be described as edit warring. Motivation can be hard to glean in these subtle cases—there was an ANI thread a few days ago involving back-and-forth reverts with a Burmese editor who was removing the word "former" from the deposed Aung San Suu Kyi's short description ("former state counsellor"), and it was a pretty murky situation. In those kinds of unclear cases, it's best to avoid going over three reverts (or two, to be safe), just so the question of edit warring on your part doesn't even get raised in the first place.
 * ✅ These are good thoughts. You're right that if you're in any doubt at all, stop before 3RR and draw it to other people's attention at an appropriate noticeboard (WP:BLPN would probably be the right place for Aung San Suu Kyi, for example). The example at Hinokitiol is a very good example of when it's fine to do that - I'm surprised it took that long for anyone to notice and block them!
 * 1) Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
 * To AIV (the Twinkle report has a checkbox for accounts that are evidently vandalism-only), after at least one warning has been given to the user, depending on the nature of the vandalism.
 * 1) Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
 * To ANI, after a failed attempt to resolve the issue on the user's talk page, and after which the user should be notified of the ANI thread (can do this with Twinkle).
 * 1) Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
 * To UAA via Twinkle, with a brief explanation of why it violates the username policy (just to help out the patrolling admin)—but could be good to hold off if the user has just been warned on their talk page about the violation and it's not a super egregious violation.
 * 1) Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
 * If it's a recurring issue that hasn't been resolved through discussions and warnings to stop, it can be raised at ANI, after which the user should be notified of the ANI thread (e.g. with Twinkle).
 * 1) Where and how should an edit war be reported?
 * At WP:AN3, if the offending user has been warned on their talk page and attempts to resolve the issue on the article's talk page are unsuccessful, and after which the user should be notified of the AN3 thread (e.g. with Twinkle).
 * 1) Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
 * At the BLP noticeboard, after which BLP noticeboard should be placed at the top of the article to notify users of the discussion.
 * 1) Where and how should an edit war be reported?
 * At WP:AN3, if the offending user has been warned on their talk page and attempts to resolve the issue on the article's talk page are unsuccessful, and after which the user should be notified of the AN3 thread (e.g. with Twinkle).
 * 1) Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
 * At the BLP noticeboard, after which BLP noticeboard should be placed at the top of the article to notify users of the discussion.
 * At the BLP noticeboard, after which BLP noticeboard should be placed at the top of the article to notify users of the discussion.

I think I'm finished! See above answers. Best, DanCherek (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations - I make that a 100% score! Well done, you have completed the course. I'll just go about tidying up the paperwork... Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  12:35, 19 February 2021 (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 100%. Well done! Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether) 12:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

As a graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox as well as the graduation message posted on your talk page (this can be treated the same as a barnstar). :