User:Girth Summit/CVUA/WikiMacaroons

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) 13:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Communication

Twinkle
Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. I see from your edit summaries that you appear to have enabled it - please have a read through WP:TWINKLE and leave a note here to let me know that you are comfortable with using it - or, let me know if you have any questions about it.


 * Hi, ! Thanks for taking me on. I've had Twinkle enabled for a little while now, and, while I mostly rollback with Lupin's tool (it's faster), I warn vandals, welcome new users and request protection with Twinkle. I'd say I'm quite comfortable using it, and I'm willing to give up Lupin's tool in favour of it. WikiMacaroons (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've never actually tried Lupin's tool - probably something I should get around to experimenting with. Twinkle is what we'll use for this course - there are other tools available, but Twinkle does everything we need it to, and it's what I'm most familiar with - once you understand how it all works, you're free to use any tool you like of course. See the next section below. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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


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


 * @ As far as I can see, the difference is that while vandals edit maliciously, good faith edits are unhelpful, or don't show a broad enough understanding of the way Wikipedia operates, but they don't necessarily have malicious intentions. I suppose these editors should not be treated as harshly as vandals, and instead be shown Wikipedia's guidelines to put their enthusiasm in a more positive direction. WikiMacaroons (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you're correct that the difference is intent - vandalism is done with the purpose of causing damage to an article or otherwise disrupting the project's processes. It can be silly stuff like adding childish nonsense into articles, it can be subtle like changing dates or numbers in articles to make them less accurate, or it can be seriously malicious like adding racist abuse into a BLP, but whatever - if it's done with the intention of harming the project, it's vandalism, and we do treat it differently to other forms of problematic editing. Before I get into that though - you've talked about what vandalism is, but you haven't mentioned how you would tell them apart. Don't worry - there isn't a right or wrong answer to this that I'm looking for - but I'd like you to consider it, and put your thoughts below. What sort of things would you be looking for when considering whether or not to classify an edit as vandalism? Girth Summit  (blether)  07:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Ah yes, I forgot. Often vandalism is quite obvious to tell, though sometimes it's more subtle like unsourced information. Say someone made an edit on a BLP saying "this person wrote a really good book!". It's clear that their intention was to make a positive edit, but if the difference is unclear, the criteria for what qualifies is at WP:NOTVANDALISM. Generally, as the guideline says, you should assume that they mean well, rather than jump to conclusions. WikiMacaroons (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's sometimes obvious, but often it's not clear - and you're exactly right, if in doubt we assume good faith. This is important to make clear early on in the course, because when you are dealing with what is definitely vandalism, you are permitted to behave in a different way than regular good faith reverts - for example, you don't need to use an edit summary when reverting vandalism, and you can revert as many times as necessary (until the vandal is blocked) without worrying about WP:3RR. However, those exemptions only apply when reverting what any reasonable person would conclude is unambiguous vandalism - if it's not obvious, then assume good faith, and act accordingly. So, with that in mind, on to the next task... Girth Summit  (blether)  14:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


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

Good faith edit diffs:
 * 1
 * ✅ Agreed, this is probably a good faith attempt to add a person to the cast list, but it's in the wrong part of the article. I've reverted, with an edit summary asking them to reinstate in the appropriate place if they have a source.
 * 2
 * This was unsourced, and so reverting was appropriate - however, you didn't use an edit summary when you reverted, which isn't ideal for good faith edits. I would probably have reverted with a summary along the lines of 'Unsourced - please reinstate if you can provide a citation to a specific reliable source'
 * 3
 * ✅ You did the right thing there - rather than reverting, just fix what they were trying to do. I agree with the IP - that paragraph is unsourced, and should definitely be verified with a reference or removed, I might do one or the other later on if I get time!

Vandalism edit diffs:
 * 1
 * ✅ Ah, some people are so clever and witty. Yes, vulgar vandalism, revert and warn.
 * 2
 * ✅ Yep.
 * 3
 * ✅ Yep.

WikiMacaroons (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to ping. @. WikiMacaroons (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@ Sorry to ping again, but I didn't know if that previous ping actually went through. WikiMacaroons (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * hi, sorry for the delay in response - I did get your ping, I've just been busy the last couple of days, both on-wiki and off, it's my school's end of term. I'll get back to you on these shortly... Girth Summit  (blether)  11:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Oh, gosh, I'm sorry for nagging. Respond whenever you can, I don't want to get in the way. WikiMacaroons (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries - feedback above, next section below! Girth Summit  (blether)  11:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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


 * Please answer the following questions:
 * Why do we warn users?
 * @ To let them know that their disruptive editing had been noticed, what they did to violate Wikipedia's Guidelines, where they stand (e.g potential block), how they can use the sandbox, and potentially other things that pertain specifically to their offence. The warnings are at different increasingly severe levels, giving the user less chances to stop vandalising.
 * ✅ Yes, that's the gist of it - we let them know that their edits are problematic, and point them towards the relevant policies and guidelines. They also help other patrollers see that they have been vandalising already, and they make an admin's decision easier when considering a block - if the user has been warned multiple times but continued vandalising, it's an easy decision to just block their account or IP.


 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
 * When a person has kept offending despite four preceding warnings.
 * A regular level 4 warning is for when they have ignored previous warnings. A 4im warning is appropriate in one of two circumstances: if a user has vandalised multiple times, but has not yet been warned; or, if they have committed something particularly egregious, like putting racist commentary into a BLP.


 * 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!)
 * You should use a substitute template when warning vandals, so you don't have to write out each warning, among other benefits. You do this by writing.
 * ✅ Yes - Twinkle does this for you, but if you ever add a template manually you should substitute in in the manner that you describe.


 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * Report them at WP:AIAV, so they are blocked from editing for a period of time. WikiMacaroons (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yep. Twinkle makes this very easy - don't try to manually file a report!

P.S. Please do not feel the need to respond quickly, I know you've got stuff going on. WikiMacaroons (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good work - see the next section below.  Girth Summit  (blether)  13:10, 12 July 2020 (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.

@ Finished :). WikiMacaroons (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Jolly good, I'm happy with them; just assume a shade more good faith when it comes to test edits - with random characters, you have very little to go on to work out someone's intention, so on the first or second offense assume it's someone just testing - if they keep doing it though, switch to vandalism warnings. Let's move on... Girth Summit  (blether)  15:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Protection
Please read the protection policy.


 * In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
 * If the article has had a recent wave of lots of vandalism from IP editors.
 * ✅ IP editors and/or new accounts. Note that it would only be done when the vandalism is coming from several different IPs/accounts - if it's possible to stop the disruption by blocking just one or two of them, that method is preferred.


 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?
 * Articles that are vandalised infrequently, but still have some influx of positive edits.


 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * High-risk and well-used templates, as well as very visible pages like the main page and files with very generic names.
 * ✅ It's also used in cases of edit warring between established accounts. It doesn't happen too often, but if a bunch of experienced editors are reverting back and forth between different versions, but none of them are going over 3RR, full protection might be applied to force them to discuss, compromise and find a consensus. (Of course, in cases like that, the admin who applies the protection invariably gets flack from one side of the other for protecting the 'wrong' version - it's never fun wading into a dispute like that!)


 * In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
 * If a page has been repeatedly deleted because it does not meet the guidelines.


 * In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
 * If new users and IP editors change and remove talk page comments, or abuse the right to talk there.
 * ✅ Yes - talk page vandalism is rare, vandals usually want to damage the article so that more people will see it. Trolls and LTAs sometimes target talk pages though, so they might be protected for a short time.


 * 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).
 * Thought I might as well use an example of when I've done this in the past, here I requested the protection of Mohamed Jumayyil due to the recent vandalism from IP editors, and here it was approved for protection for one week.
 * ✅ Good stuff.

Time to ping. - Finished! WikiMacaroons (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent - on to the next section. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.


 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted? (Don't list the specific criteria - explain what the purpose of speedy deletion is.)
 * The purpose of speedy deletion is to quickly remove unambiguously non-useful pages. Administrators can do this and forgo discussion. WikiMacaroons (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yes - it's about uncontroversial deletions, where there is no realistic hope of an article being saved. You can read the criteria in full for yourself, but the main thing you need to know is that the criteria are judged strictly, and that there are alternatives to deletion that you should also consider. Let's look at some examples... Girth Summit  (blether)  09:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion examples
In past iterations of this course, students have been asked to go out and actually tag pages for deletion, but with the introduction of WP:ACPERM, the amount of straight vandalism that gets created directly in mainspace has reduced dramatically. As such, I'm going to ask you to say how you would act in a set of hypothetical scenarios. What would you do if you saw the page listed in each scenario? Note that not all scenarios may warrant speedy deletion.

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
 * I suppose that's an attack page, G10.

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
 * Count me in! G11, blatantly promotional article.

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
 * Even if Edward Gordon was notable, this would violate WP:COI... G10?
 * So, an author having a COI doesn't make the article eligible for G10 - the language has to be exclusively promotional too. In this case it is fairly promotional, but this is an A7 (arguably the most difficult CSD criterion to judge). The threshold for A7 is that it does not contain a credible claim of significance - see WP:SIGNIF. If you look at what we know about this person - they have starred in school plays, they have published music on a self-publishing platform, and they have a few thousand followers on YouTube - none of those are claims of significance.

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
 * A1, I reckon. Unless this page can be salvaged to be more informative.
 * Well, a lot of admins might accept your A1; however, it's not technically eligible, because there is enough information there for you to identify the subject. If you stick Bazz Ward into Google (or into our search bar), you will find him, along with Lemmy, mentioned in our article on The Nice - so we have identified the subject. Can we nominate for A7? No - the article asserts that he is a Hall of Fame roadie, which is a claim of significance and which, since we now know he was a roadie from the aforementioned article, is credible. So, what to do - obviously we can't keep such a crappy article in mainspace! A good option for situations like this is to set up a redirect, targeted at the article where there is some information about him. That way, anybody searching for him will at least be taken straight to the relevant article.

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
 * Even if it didn't say "All Rights Reserved", it would still fail a copyvio check, so that's a G12.

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.
 * Scenario 6
 * Shouldn't necessarily be deleted. It should be marked for translation, unless it already exists on another language WP, in which case A2.
 * Almost perfect - however, one thing I always do is grad a chunk of text and put it into Google Translate first. Articles like that are very often promo, or occasionally attack pages - if you identify it as one of those, tag is as such. If it seems legit, then do as you propose.

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
 * Scenario 7
 * Blanking counts as a 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
 * In Userspace, that's fine, otherwise I'd call it G1 or G2.
 * ✅ ✅ Yes - either of those tags would work in article space; in user space, leave them to it, if that's what they want on their userpage it's not hurting anybody.

Done!  Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon? 15:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good work once again ! I like your flashy new sig. I'll upload the next section shortly... Girth Summit  (blether)  16:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, :) was a bit sick of the ordinary default sig.  Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon? 16:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

- see below for the next bit Girth Summit  (blether)  16:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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


 * If you believe an edit needs to be revision deleted, how would you request that?
 * You would notify one of the admins involved in revision deletion, either by IRC, Email, or their talk page.


 * If you believe that it's so serious it needs oversight, how would you request that?
 * Same methods as before, except the talk page is avoided so as not to publicise the revision.

<b style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon?</b> 08:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry @ but I'm worried that the first ping didn't work. <b style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon?</b> 08:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt - it didn't! I'll take a look later today, about to go out. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  09:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is correct . I always find IRC to be the quickest method of getting eyes on something like this - admins' talk pages aren't the best choice, because they are frequently watched by a lot of people, so my advice would be to go onto IRC, and if nobody is around, send an e-mail. See below for the next section... Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  09:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Usernames
Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol the User creation log to check for new users with inappropriate usernames (note that you can set this to view 500 users rather than the default 50 - I find that easier to scroll through quickly, and the link on my userpage takes you there directly). There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed: 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.


 * DonaldTrumpOfficial
 * Impersonating someone. Report to Usernames for Admin Attention.
 * ✅ Yes - this is clearly trying to indicate that they are the current president of the US. Accounts claiming to be someone famous are blocked until they can provide evidence (usually an e-mail to the OTRS team) that they are who they say they are.


 * BGates
 * I suppose this could be seen as an impersonation of Bill Gates, but BGates is probably pretty common as initials go...
 * ✅ Exactly - BGates could mean Brenda Gates, Barry Gates, or even a completely unrelated Bill Gates - it's a common name. Unless they were editing articles about Microsoft in a dubious way, or they set up their userpage to indicate that they really were that Bill Gates, we would leave this one alone.


 * LMedicalCentre
 * Um, report to UAA for promotion, I think.
 * ✅ Except - wait for the account to edit. If they're editing about a medical centre of that name, report.


 * G1rth Summ1t
 * Impersonation of you! Report to UAA.
 * Yes - this is quite a common means of trolling, I've had impersonators create accounts based on mine a couple of times, and I've reported (and blocked, since becoming an admin) many more. They're usually impersonating prolific admins and patrollers, but they don't last long because the usernames kind-of stand out. Report immediately.


 * JoeAtBurgerKing
 * Potential COI if they edit Burger King-related articles.
 * ✅ Yes - this username isn't a problem. If it was just BurgerKing it wouldn't be allowed, but names like this are expressly permitted by policy. However = if they were editing about anything to do with their job, they would need to comply with the COI and PAID guidelines, otherwise report to COIN.


 * JoeTheSysop
 * Misleading - report to UAA


 * WikiMackaroons
 * I will not stand for this! I sentence them to UAA!


 * FuckAllYouAssholes
 * That's pretty profane, report to UAA for offensive username.
 * ✅ Yes - I'd block an account like that before it edited. (If you look in my block log, you'll see that I recently blocked an account with a highly offensive username before it edited). Note that we're not super-sensitive about words that are just a bit rude - I wouldn't block an account like 'CrapWriter' unless it was vandalising.


 * Non-script username, I think this needs discussion at WP:Requests for comment/User names.
 * ✅ Yes - if this bothered you you'd need to go to RFCN, not UAA.
 * ✅ Yes - if this bothered you you'd need to go to RFCN, not UAA.

Done and dusted ! <b style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon?</b> 09:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Very good . You'll see I declined your recent report to UAA on the grounds that they account hadn't edited yet - see the feedback above for a bit more on this, but your answers here are all correct. I'll upload the next section tomorrow. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . <b style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon?</b> 16:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See below - just a quick one I expect! Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Fortunately, there's a guideline for cases like this. Please read 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 emergency@wikimedia.org and send them the concern and the diff.


 * What should you do if an edit looks like a threat of harm, but you suspect it may just be an empty threat (i.e. someone joking around)?
 * I don't feel like I'm able to make that judgement, better safe than sorry, contact emergency@wikimedia.org.

Done @ <b style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon?</b> 16:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also @, could I have your guidance on something, please? See the top message on my talk page. This user changed a page about a dormant volcano saying it was inactive. I reverted it, because it was unsourced, and they left me that message. They left the same message on their talk page. Advise? Thanks, <b style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon?</b> 10:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * First - ✅, your answers are correct :)
 * Second - so, I find it hard to believe that person is a USA Scientist, their English is pretty poor, but whatever - they appear to be editing in good faith, but are trying to support their change based on their own observations, which is original research and is not permitted. Since they have approached you in good faith, they deserve a response - I would post something along the following lines:
 * Hi unregistered editor, thanks for reaching out. I reverted your edit because it was not supported by a reliable source. You seem to be saying that you are declaring it to be extinct based on your own observations - that is what we call original research, which is prohibited here by policy. You might be correct about it being extinct, but we have no way of verifying whether or not that is the case; if you can find a published source confirming that, you can reinstate the change. Cheers ...
 * That gives them all the information they need to understand why you reverted, and what they should do next if they want to reinstate their change. Hope that makes sense - next section below (which, by a strange coincidence, is about what to do if someone who is not acting in good faith approaches you in a similar manner). Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  10:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

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


 * Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?
 * Because if we gave them recognition, that just feeds their want to vandalise.


 * 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.)
 * Responses will probably be less polite if they're from vandals, I assume, but this isn't a guarantee. You could check back at what you reverted, might've been a mistake, but you might take requests more seriously from people with other non-vandalism edits.

@ Finito. <b style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon?</b> 10:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah - don't put too much store in whether or not they are polite. Some otherwise good editors get very angry about being reverted, and they might come to your page and blow off steam; some trolls with engage in WP:SEALIONING, and pretend to be polite just to waste your time. If someone comes to your talk to complain about a revert, look at the edits, and their history. Is it possible that they were acting in good faith? If so, AGF and respond, as I suggested you do above. If you decide that your revert was a mistake, apologise profusely, even if they have been rude - they usually calm down quickly, and if they continue to be rude after your apology they will be showing themselves in a very poor light. If, however, you come to the conclusion that they are definitely a vandal, then do not engage - revert and report.
 * We're getting near the end of the course now WikiMacaroons. Just a couple more sections to work through, then your final exam (which I don't believe you'll have any difficulty with). I'm about to go away for the weekend though, so it might be a few days before I upload it - please carry on doing your good work for a few days, I'll ping you when I'm ready to move forward. Cheers! Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  11:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @, the course has been very enjoyable thus far. You enjoy your weekend, looking forward to next section. <b style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon?</b> 11:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi - sorry for the extended delay, the weekend got extended a bit and I got my head into other stuff. Below is a new section that another trainer and I discussed recently - thanks  for putting it together - which discusses the things to consider when you come across blanking when RC patrolling. I intend to use this earlier on in the course generally, but I think it would be worthwhile your taking a look at it.  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, @.

Blanking
Sometimes during your patrolling for vandalism, you'll come across an edit that removes most, if not all, of the content from an article or section. It's easy to simply revert, warn, and continue on, but actually, these kind of edits usually require more attention than the average potentially 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?
 * To remove unsourced or unhelpful content.
 * This isn't wrong exactly, but it isn't as detailed as I'd have liked. Unsourced content doesn't necessarily need to be removed - you can use a 'citation needed' template if the material isn't contentious, especially on non-BLP pages. But yes - controversial information that is unsourced, or that is sourced to unreliable sources, or that is sourced to reliable sources that don't actually support the assertions, is definitely a good thing for the project.
 * Yeah, you're right, was a bit vague. Blanking edits are helpful if they remove information that impair potential consumption of the page, or are too controversial to remain -ed. <b style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon?</b> 15:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

What are some of the main things to look for in an edit that blanks a lot of text?
 * What the content was that was removed, what it was replaced with, how well sourced or helpful the content was.
 * ✅ Yes - look at the content, and the sourcing. Only reinstate content if you are confident that the sourcing is reliable and supports the material that has been removed. Remember that if you choose to reinstate content that has been blanked, you are effectively taking responsibility for it. Reinstating dodgy content, especially BLP violations, is a really good way to get yourself blocked from editing. I remember an occasion quite early on in my patrolling days where several editors, including myself and a number of prominent admins, reinstated some stuff that an IP was removing from a BLP without edit summaries. The content was sourced, and we all indulged in knee-jerk reverting; then a more careful admin actually looked at the content properly, and it was apparent that it was a BLP violation - the sourcing was ropey (tabloid gossip stuff) and it was about the subject's relative, rather than the subject themselves. We all got a pretty embarrassing roasting at ANI that I still blush to think about.
 * Whoops... Well if one good thing could come out of that, it serves as a cautionary tale to us CVUA student-types

Please find three examples of an edit that blanks content, and explain why they are either good or bad.:
 * BAD-Template-breaking removal
 * Would you mind explaining this to me in a bit more detail? I'm not seeing how that breaks the template, the table looks like it still works OK when I look at it, but maybe I'm missing something.
 * Scroll down to the Upcoming heading. Technically the template still works, but they'res no point in that heading being there if there's nothing under it.
 * OK, I see what you mean. In instances like that, consider whether it is more helpful to revert, or to fix the problem. Edits might be factually correct, but improperly formatted - use your best judgement on the correct course of action, and remember that new editors might not know how to work with templates, tables and stuff.
 * BAD-Unexplained removal of beginning section
 * That's not really blanking - the content is still there, they just changed a work and used a bunch of carriage returns to push the content further down the page. Standard test edit/vandalism revert.
 * Oh yeah, I didn't look at that diff carefully enough.
 * GOOD- Helpful reorganisation to comply with MOS
 * Yes - this is fine, they had already added in the content in a new location in the article, so were correctly removing it so it doesn't appear twice.

Ping time - @! That was a useful section - Puddleglum reviewed my first article, isn't that nice. <b style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon?</b> 17:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's a small world :). See my comments above, can you expand on the first blanking please? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  10:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Done <b style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon?</b> 15:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool - one more comment above, but let's move on, I'll check through the notes and see what there is still to cover, be back to you shortly. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Good point, didn't necessarily have to be reverted. See you in the next section :) <b style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Wiki  Macaroons Cinnamon?</b> 20:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

- here it is... Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 14:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Rollback
In light of your recent contributions, I expect that if you apply for the rollback permission at Requests for permissions/Rollback, an administrator would be happy to enable it on your account, but first we should demonstrate that you understand what the tool is, and the responsibilities that go along with it.

The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced counter vandalism operatives to revert vandalism with the click of one button, not unlike the "rollback" button that you've already been using in Twinkle. This would give you a new rollback button in addition to the three you've been seeing in Twinkle. The new rollback button is slightly faster than the Twinkle rollback button, but more importantly, having the rollback right gives you access to downloadable counter-vandalism software like Huggle.

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 for vandalism, your own mistakes (so I should be using it a lot), and mass unhelpful edits. It shouldn't be used for edits you simply disagree with, talk page messages that aren't vandalism, or anything else that is unnecessary reverting.
 * ✅ Yes, correct. It is strictly only for vandalism, narrowly construed - if you aren't planning to give a vandalism warning immediately afterwards, don't use rollback. If you think it should be a 'blanking' warning, an 'unsourced content warning', or even a 'this is so grammatically incoherent that I don't know what it means' edit summary, don't use rollback. If it's clear and unambiguous vandalism - rollback is OK.


 * Hopefully this will never happen, but it does occasionally. If you accidentally use rollback, what should you do?
 * Manually revert, just like when this happens with twinkle, I usually write "Whoops" or "Accidental revert" as the edit summary.


 * Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?
 * No, it just does an automatic summary. Use something like twinkle instead.
 * ✅ There is actually a script that you can use to make rollback use an edit summary, but I personally don't bother with that - if I want to leave an edit summary, I use Twinkle.

@ I think having Huggle would supplement my anti-vandalism, so tell me from those ^ answers if you think I'm ready to have the right. <b style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon?</b> 17:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep - all good. I could technically enable Rollback on your account, but as your trainer I prefer to allow another sysop to review. Please go ahead and request the permission at WP:PERM, and ping me in your request - I'll add my endorsement. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  10:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations - I see the request was granted. All that remains, then, is the final exam. Go through it at your own pace, no rush, and ping me when you're done.  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Part 1

 * For each of these examples, please state whether you would call the edit(s) described as vandalism or good faith edit, a reason for that, and how you would deal with the situation (ensuring you answer the questions where applicable).
 * 1) A user adds 'What does this button do?' into an article. The first time, and times after that? Edit test warning UW-test level 1, and UW-Vandalism for the next few, if they persist, report to AIV.
 * 2) A user inserts '###################################' into an article, having never edited before. Would you treat it differently if they had done the same thing once before? Same as before, UW-test, but if they've done it before, UW-vandalism.
 * 3) A user deletes the first three paragraphs from an article, without leaving an edit summary. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that? UW-Blank each time increasing level.
 * ✅ Removing the first three paragraphs is almost never going to be valid - but it is worth a quick check to make sure they aren't removing vandalism or total nonsense.
 * 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? Next level UW-articlesig, increase level each time, eventually report to AIV.
 * 2) A user removes sourced information from a BLP, with the summary 'this is wrong'. First time, and after that? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions? UW-blank, unless they're right, in either instance.
 * ✅ We've discussed what's involved in checking whether they're right or not already - checking is important!
 * 1) A user removes sourced information from a BLP, with the summary 'this is wrong'. First time, and after that? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions? UW-blank, unless they're right, in either instance.
 * ✅ We've discussed what's involved in checking whether they're right or not already - checking is important!
 * ✅ We've discussed what's involved in checking whether they're right or not already - checking is important!

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 Pasta. UW-Blank
 * 2) A user blanks a section of Cricket without giving an explanation. UW-Remove
 * ✅ (It's called UW-delete now, but UW-Remove redirects to that)
 * 1) A user adds random characters to Aardvark. UW-Test
 * 2) A user adds 'Donald is the best!' to United States. UW-Vandalism
 * ✅ That would work, but for a first offense I'd probably give a UW-npov for a first offense, since it gives more specific advice.
 * 1) A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Donald Trump. UW-Vandalism
 * UW-attempt is better for attempts that failed - again, it gives more specific advice.
 * 1) A user puts "I HATE CHEESE!" on Edam (cheese). UW-Vandalism
 * 2) A user adds 'and he was seen dropping litter in Hyde Park' to Hugh Grant. UW-Unsourced/UW-Biog
 * ✅ UW-biog is the one to go for here - it's a BLP, the content is (mildly) controversial.
 * 1) A new user adds curse words to your user page (this is their first edit). UW-Vandalism
 * ✅ UW-harass would be better, but vandalism would work.
 * 1) A user blanks Dell, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users. UW-Blank, level 4im warning
 * 2) A user blanks Dell, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning. Report to AIV
 * ✅ UW-harass would be better, but vandalism would work.
 * 1) A user blanks Dell, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users. UW-Blank, level 4im warning
 * 2) A user blanks Dell, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning. Report to AIV
 * 1) A user blanks Dell, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning. Report to AIV

Part 3

 * What CSD tag you would put on the following articles? (The content below represents the entire content of the article).
 * 1) Tim Spinks is the fastest runner in Park Grove School, and won the house cup three years running. A7, Non-notable
 * 2) NCPP Delivery gives fast, efficient delivery service - go to npcc.com for more info! G11, Promotional
 * 3) Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home ! Um, A1 or G1 I think?
 * ✅ This is an A1 - who is Joe? It's not a G1 - that's for incomprehensible nonsense (literally just random words or seurhfeiaruiuerbiaebrfeaoiryab)
 * 1) The Island of Orkvanderland is an island three hundred miles off the coast of Western Australia, inhabited by orks. G3, is a hoax.
 * 2) Terry is the a great singer. G1 or A1.
 * ✅ It's another A1 - who is Terry? If there was more context, it might have been an A7 or a G11, but we can't even tell who they're promoting.
 * 1) Fuck all you assholes! G3
 * 1) Terry is the a great singer. G1 or A1.
 * ✅ It's another A1 - who is Terry? If there was more context, it might have been an A7 or a G11, but we can't even tell who they're promoting.
 * 1) Fuck all you assholes! G3

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) TheCosmicPatrollers Might be a violation of WP:ISU, though it might be okay. Just in case, report to UAA
 * I like the first part of your reasoning here, but don't report usernames just in case. Check their editing history - are they writing about a band of that name, or similar? If so, report. If not, leave them alone.
 * 1) Poopsniffer Unless it's a vandalism account, that's probably ok. If it is, report to AIV.
 * ✅ Yes - an account with a name like that is likely to be vandalising, but it's not offensive enough to report.
 * 1) StopVandalBot If it's not a bot, report to UAA.
 * 2) Joshtheadmin Violation of WP:MISLEADNAME, report to UAA.
 * 3) poiuytrewassdfhukjhgffghjghhkhgfhdrhjjv9876543 Confusing username, report to UAA.
 * See WP:UNCONF - as with Poopsniffer, I'd expect to see an account like this causing disruption, but if they aren't then don't report.
 * 1) GeoffBarnes Is a fictional character, so probably ok.
 * 2) JeffBridgesFan Looks ok to me.
 * 1) GeoffBarnes Is a fictional character, so probably ok.
 * 2) JeffBridgesFan Looks ok to me.
 * 1) JeffBridgesFan Looks ok to me.

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)? Yes, which is why the three revert rule exists: Only three reverts on a page per person per day.
 * Remember that WP:3RRNO protects you for obvious vandalism or serious BLP violations - you can revert them as often as you like, but make sure it's totally obvious. If in doubt, get more eyes on it.
 * 1) Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported? WP:AIV, by filing a report with Twinkle.
 * 2) Where and how should complex abuse be reported? WP:ANI I think?
 * ✅ Yes - AIV is for obvious stuff, where an admin just has to take a quick look at their contribs to make a decision. If you think you would need to explain what the problem is in detail, go to ANI.
 * 1) Where and how should blatant username violations be reported? WP:UAA
 * 2) Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported? Um, WP:AIV or ANI?
 * ✅ Yes - and as above, if it's obvious and repeated, go to AIV, but if there's a history that needs unpacking go to ANI.
 * 1) Where and how should an edit war be reported? The Edit Warring noticeboard.
 * 2) Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported? The BLP noticeboard, contact oversighters via the IRC or email.
 * ✅ Go to BLPN for most stuff, but you're right - if you suspect that personal information has been released that needs to be redacted, don't draw attention to it - contact an oversighter.
 * 1) Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported? The BLP noticeboard, contact oversighters via the IRC or email.
 * ✅ Go to BLPN for most stuff, but you're right - if you suspect that personal information has been released that needs to be redacted, don't draw attention to it - contact an oversighter.
 * ✅ Go to BLPN for most stuff, but you're right - if you suspect that personal information has been released that needs to be redacted, don't draw attention to it - contact an oversighter.

@ - Phew! I think I'm done. <b style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon?</b> 17:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good stuff WikiMacaroons - just a few comments above (you're leaning a bit heavily on the vandalism user warning, and 3RRNO is a thing), but overall a very good performance. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  12:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Completion
'': Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy, on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction and graduation from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with 93%. Well done! Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 12:20, 4 August 2020 (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). :


 * Thanks ! You've been a great teacher! I am really thankful for your instruction. <b style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon?</b> 13:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)