User:Kleinpecan/CVUA

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 when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me at my talk page.

Make sure you read through 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
 * Once you graduate, I will copy this page into your userspace so you have a record of your training and a reference for the future.

There are several sections of the training course. In some of them, will be asking you to do perform practical exercises (for example, patrolling recent changes or the abuse log in order to find problematic edits); in others, I will ask you to read certain policies and guidelines, and then ask you some questions about their content. It is not a problem if you give the wrong answer to any of the questions - making mistakes and discussing them is a crucial part of the learning process. For that reason, it is important that you do not attempt to find previous users' training pages in order to identify the 'right' answers to give: all your answers should be your own, so that we can identify and address any misconceptions that you might have. There is no time pressure to complete the course: we will go at whatever pace works for you, and you can take a pause or ask questions at any point along the way.
 * 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. Pahunkat (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Communication

Twinkle
Twinkle is a highly useful gadget that can be enabled by any autoconfirmed user. It is used to automate a variety of maintenance tasks, including reverting vandalism, tagging pages for deletion and requesting page protection (you'll learn about these later in the course). See Twinkle for more information about this tool.

Redwarn
Redwarn is a tool specifically designed for reverting vandalism and warning users. You can read its documentation, including how to install the tool, at RedWarn.

Huggle
Huggle is another anti-vandalism tool which comes in the form of a desktop application. To use Huggle you must have rollback permissions, so we won't be covering Huggle during this course - though feel free to ask me about it upon completion. You can read up about it at Huggle.


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

Finding the vandals
There are two main ways to find edits to check for vandalism. The first is through the recent changes log - this can be accessed by clicking the 'Recent changes' link in the 'contribute' section at the left navigation bar, or navigating to Special:Recentchanges. The second way if through monitoring the abuse log, which lists edits which have tripped edit filters - these edits may still go through or may be disallowed depending on the filter. This can be accessed at Special:Abuselog.

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

AGF is one of the most important policies to bear in mind when patrolling for vandalism - it's important that you get this right, so please take time to read the above policies carefully - if you have any confusion at all please raise it with me below. We'll stay on this section for as long as necessary, there's no limit on the time it takes to complete this section.

'''A new user makes an edit that needs to be reverted. On which circumstances would you AGF: Edits contrary to the manual of style, replacing the name of a BLP with "Wikipedia is stupid", edits that don't adhere to a neutral point of view, addition of unsourced (not defamatory) content, adding swear words to the text of an article. Include reasons'''
 * Edits contrary to the manual of style, edits that don't adhere to a neutral point of view – the majority of new editors don't know about those policies
 * I would like to include "addition of unsourced (not defamatory) content" here, but I just looked at my edit history and noticed that I treat most unsourced edits in bad faith, because I'm an asshole. Oh well. Kleinpecan (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

✅ That's all correct - most of the times new users add unsourced content it's in good faith. With BLPs it can be hard to tell the intentions of SPAs (Single purpose accounts) that add unsourced and defamatory content to the article.

Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
 * A good faith edit is an edit done with the intent of improving the quality of the encyclopedia, as opposed to vandalism which aims to diminish it. It can be helpful to check the edit history and talk page of an editor to see whether they are acting in good or bad faith (although that's not usually possible if the editor is very new). Kleinpecan (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

✅ Also look through their edit filter log (you may see entries where a user has tried to add obvious vandalism that was disallowed by an edit filter, and look at edit summaries. "added content" (-5,720) is clearly false...

Please explain why it is important to not to WP:BITE newcomers whose edits may have been made in good faith
 * So as to not scare them away from editing Wikipedia. Kleinpecan (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC) ✅

'''You come across an edit, and you find yourself unsure as to whether it was made in good or bad faith. In cases like these do you treat the edit as made in good faith or bad faith, and why?'''
 * I would like to type "good faith" here, but (see the second sentence of my reply to the first question). Kleinpecan (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

✅ for good faith. Remember that this is assume good faith.


 * Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. These can be from your editing history or from your next recent changes/Abuse log patrol.

A note about Redwarn and Twinkle
Hopefully you'll have noticed that RedWarn allows you three primary options for performing a rollback - green, blue, and red links (see the screenshot). All three will revert all of the most recent consecutive edits made by a single user to a page. The orange button should only be used when a user blanks a large portion of the page without an edit summary that explains why - this is called unexplained removal of content.

Try to use these buttons where possible. The green and the blue ones allow you to add an edit summary - it's described as 'optional', but you should not treat it as such - always leave a brief edit summary, even if it's just 'Rv test edit', or 'Rv unexplained removal of content', or whatever. Use the green one when you think it's a good faith mistake, and the blue one when you're not sure. Only use the red one when you are certain that it is unambiguous vandalism - it saves time, because it leaves a generic edit summary, and all of them will take you directly to the talk page of the person you have reverted, to allow you to use the 'Warn' option to give them a warning. (Also note that you can use the purple "restore this version" button when you need to revert edits by multiple users.) There are more options for 'rollback' buttons if you click the three dots at the very end of the menu, for edits that require reverting because they violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines (for example edits uncompliant with the manual of style, undisclosed paid editing and enforcing violations of WP:3RR).

Likewise, with Twinkle there are three 'rollback' links - once again they are red, blue and green. You should apply the same principles of judgement as for the buttons in RedWarn when deciding which link to use.

Note that, per WP:3RR, An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. However, exceptions apply (see the 3RR page) - including reverting blatant and obvious vandalism. If you're not sure, it's best not to go past three reverts and attempt to engage the editor in discussion.

-- Hello, please find the start of the training page above. I see you're not new to this sort of work, which is great - the course shouldn't be too hard. The above mainly deals with installing a few gadgets (I see you have TW already, RW is good to install but not necessary for the work), and then one of the most important policies to bear in mind when reverting edits - AGF. Once you're finished, please ping me below so I can have a look at it :-) Pahunkat (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've replied. Kleinpecan (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's great - please see my feedback above, it's clear you understand AGF. Did you get to install RedWarn, or would you prefer to just use Twinkle? Pahunkat (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Twinkle seems to be sufficient for now. Kleinpecan (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Warning and reporting
When you use RedWarn or Twinkle to warn a user, you have a number of options to choose from: you can select the kind of warning (for different offences), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4 and 4im, for increasing severity). Knowing which warning to issue and what level is very important. Further information can be found at WP:WARN and WP:UWUL. Please note that most of this is automated on RedWarn; you'll need to pick this only if you pick the blue button.


 * Please answer the following questions:
 * Why do we warn users?
 * To let them know what is wrong with their edits.

✅ and to help constructive editors improve


 * When would a 4im (only) warning be appropriate?
 * In especially egregious cases of bad-faith editing.
 * Any others? And what do you mean by "egregious cases"?
 * It can also be used when the editor has done many instances of vandalism in a short time span but didn't receive any warnings (or only received one- or second-level warning). As to "egregious", I don't really know. Maybe something like saying that a living person is a pedophile rapist and a dogfucker, or saying that Jews are subhumans who should be gassed, or doxing someone?
 * ✅ Another situation where you might use a 4im is when you have users who have made lots of vandal edits which have been reverted but they have not been warned. The examples you gave are very blatant - I rarely across them, but they do happen and I would agree a 4im would be warranted there. If I see image vandalism, it's straight to a 4im. Pahunkat (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 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!)
 * Yes; by adding subst: before the template name.

✅ Always substitute


 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalizes again?
 * Block or eport them to WP:AIV.

✅ For us non-admins, it's off to AIV.


 * Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. For each revert/warning please fill in a line on the table below. Note that you must be the user that reverts the vandalism and warns the user. If you have trouble with the wiki markup, tell me and we'll get it sorted out.

-- Hey, please see the next section above. Twinkle automates the warning process for us, but I find it helpful to have knowledge of some basic templates, especially when editing on mobile. Note that it's perfectly acceptable to give "warnings" to a user who's made edits in good faith that needed to be reverted (e.g. a uw-unsourced1 to someone who adds an unsourced statement) - the level one templates for most warnings aren't likely to chase off new editors and help them to find their way around. Pahunkat (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * . I've replied. Also, is it appropriate not to warn mobile editors since they almost certainly won't see the warnings? Kleinpecan (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, it's worth still warning mobile editors, though the WMF need to sort this issue out ASAP. Who knows, they might decide to go on desktop on the same IP... Pahunkat (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - I've marked the section, there's a question to follow-up - could you have a look at the feedback I've left? Best, Pahunkat (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. "I usually use a 4im for image vandals": they did the same thing after several minutes and I gave them a 4im warning. They didn't vandalize afterwards. Kleinpecan (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kleinpecan, marked - when I meant I usually give a 4im to image vandals, I meant as a 'first' warning. Will add next section below. Pahunkat (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Page protection, and an introduction to 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 RedWarn menu (on the right-hand side, the RPP option) to request page protection. Twinkle can be used to request speedy deletion (the TW menu next to the search bar on top, the CSD option) and also request page protection (the RPP option on the menu).

Please read the protection policy.


 * In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
 * If it's frequently vandalized by new users or if there's an edit war ongoing.


 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?
 * If it's edited infrequently and most edits are vandalism.
 * When would you apply pending changes, and when semi protection?
 * An article should be PC'd if it is edited infrequently (i. e., it is possible to manually review each edit) and is persistently vandalized over a prolonged period of time. SP should be used if the article has a high edit rate (i. e., it is *not* possible to manually review each edit) and the vandalism is believed to be temporary rather than persistent.

{{tick} I get the gist of what you mean here and it's the right idea. PC can also be used for pages where there's a fair amount of vandalism from non-AC but also constructive contributions from many non-AC.


 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * If it's a highly visible page or a template; if it's a template used in system messages; if it's frequently vandalized by extended-confirmed users; if there is a large-scale content dispute or an edit war ongoing, especially between EC users.
 * ✅ for the last three. for templates, these are template-protected.
 * Huh? High-risk templates says "high-risk templates and Lua modules may be fully protected or template protected" and "full protection or template protection may be required to prevent abusive editing"; says "the following are usually fully protected for an indefinite period of time: [...] Pages that are very frequently transcluded, such as  or ".
 * Good spot - the lions share of templates will be template protected though, it's exceedingly unlikely that you will ever need to request full protection of a template. Pahunkat (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
 * If it's been repeatedly deleted and recreated.

✅ The title is unsuitable for further creation


 * In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
 * If it's an archive or it's vandalized frequently.
 * ✅ for vandalized frequently but for archives. There is no policy to semi-protect archives.
 * If we protect a talk page, do we do it for long periods of time?
 * No. ✅


 * 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).
 * Special:Diff/1015731152. ✅

-- Hello, please find the next section above - this time it's on page protection. The exercises for speedy deletion will come in the next section. As always, please ping me below when you're finished or if you need help. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, a few things to see above. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. 05:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.

Also, what is the significance of the letter prefixed to each criteria?
 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?
 * Speedy deletion is used when it is obvious that a page has no place on Wikipedia, and where a "full" deletion discussion (XFD) would be counterproductive.
 * The letter is the type of the page. G stands for "general", A stands for "article", U stands for "user page" etc.


 * Tag two pages in any namespace for speedy deletion. It may take a while to find one, so I'd be willing to move on if you can't find any to tag. Post the page name below. Hint: You'll have a better chance of success at this task if you go through the abuse log to find pages which have tripped filters such as "possible self-promotion in userspace" and similar
 * Draft:Digirooster and Draft:Taiwo Salam & Co. Properties Limited. ✅

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

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
 * CSD G10 (Db-negublp) and report the user to WP:UAA. ✅

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
 * CSD G11 (Db-spamuser) and report the user to WP:UAA. ✅

A user creates an article titled "Edward Gordon" with the following text: Edward Gordon (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 5,250 subscribers on YouTube.
 * Scenario 3
 * CSD 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
 * Redirect the article to The Nice. ✅

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
 * No.
 * What speedy deletion criteria would you use?
 * G12. ✅

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.
 * Scenario 6
 * Translate it with an automatic translator to see if it qualifies for other speedy deletion criteria (I have seen a non-English page that was an ad for some site once). If it does not, then CSD A2 or add Not English.
 * When would you A2 and when would you add Not English?
 * A2 if the article is essentially a copy of an article that already exists on another WMF project, and Not English otherwise.
 * ✅ Remember with not English to list the page at Pages needing translation into English.

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
 * Scenario 7
 * CSD 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 draftspace? How about in article space, or in a user sandbox?
 * Scenario 8
 * If it's in article or draft space, then CSD G1. Otherwise, do nothing. ✅

-- Hello, please see the next section above. Sorry for the delay - I didn't get the ping - note they only work with a four-tilde signature. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, did you get the ping this time? Kleinpecan (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, I got the ping - need a more substantial piece of time before marking this, right now my editing is just on whatever I can get. Should be done by the end of the day though. Pahunkat (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - marked, please see above. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:25, 29 April 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 articles above. Revision deletion hides the edit from anyone except admins; oversight provides an even greater level of restriction, with only oversighters able to see the comments. The threshold between the two is quite fine - I've been on the wrong side of it a few times. If you are in doubt as to whether revdel or oversight is required, the best bet is to forward it to the oversight team - whoever reviews it will be able to make the decision and act on it.


 * If you believe an edit needs to be revision deleted, how would you request that?
 * If it's a copyright violation, use Copyvio-revdel. Otherwise, contact an admin on their talk page or by email/IRC.

✅ There's a category of admins willing to Revdel per email requests, I usually email Oshwah :-)


 * If you believe that it's so serious it needs oversight, how would you request that?
 * By email (oversight-en-wp@undefinedwikipedia.org), IRC, or contacting an individual oversighter. ✅

Hello, please find the next section above, this time in resisting deletion and oversight. If you have any questions or finish, once again please ping me below. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:45, 29 April 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, Wikimedia Foundation, etc), usernames that impersonate other people (either famous people, or other Wikipedians' usernames), or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
 * Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.
 * Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
 * Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.


 * 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
 * Assume good faith and leave as is (unless they edit articles related to Microsoft or Bill Gates, in which case I would report them to UAA).

✅ Real names are permitted, could also stand for Bob Gates or similar
 * Pakunhat
 * Report to UAA as a misleading username.

✅ Impersonation
 * J0E B1DEN
 * Misleading.

✅ Report to UAA
 * JoeAtBurgerKing
 * Leave as is, unless they violate COI guidelines.

✅ Form of username is encouraged - whether they violate PAID/COI is another matter
 * JoeTheSysop
 * Misleading.

✅
 * KIeinpecan Is this really your username? Check edit source...
 * Misleading.

✅ Impersonation
 * LMedicalCentre
 * Leave a note on the user's talk page asking them to change their username (unless they violate COI guidelines, in which case I would report them to UAA). ✅


 * Yallaredumb
 * Offensive. ✅ report to uaa


 * Christopher Smith
 * Leave as is (unless they edit articles related to Chris or Christopher Smith). ✅


 * Oshwaah
 * Impersonation. ✅


 * Non-script username. Leave a note on the user's talk page asking them to change it. ✅
 * Non-script username. Leave a note on the user's talk page asking them to change it. ✅


 * 1kdimfi3jgoerto4u5urt9u3u93dhoweeherwrwehehehe
 * Overly long username. Leave a note on the user's talk page (unless they vandalize, which is likely with usernames like that).

I'd probably report to UAA as a disruptive username.

--
 * Hello, please see the next section on usernames above. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:20, 2 May 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?
 * Send an email with diffs to emergency@undefinedwikimedia.org. Contact an admin by IRC or email if the threat needs to be revdeleted.

✅, but always contact an admin
 * 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)?
 * "Many threats are empty, but leave that evaluation to Foundation staff".

✅ Always report threats

-- Hello, I've marked the section on usernames - no major issues there. Here's a short section on how to deal with emergencies - once again, please ping me when done. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Kleinpecan (talk) 10:56, 6 May 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 vandalize your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. Please read WP:DENY.


 * Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?
 * Because this is exactly what they want and what motivates them to troll and vandalize.

✅ Some vandals are here just for attention. If we deny them recognition, it isn't fun for them anymore and they might stop.

-- Hello, great work on the section above. This new one is a short one about how to WP:DENY recognition to the trolls on Wikipedia. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Kleinpecan (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All good! Pahunkat (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2021 (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 and Stiki.

If you're interested, take a look at our rollback guideline at WP:Rollback and feel free to answer the questions below. The rollback right is not an essential part of this course, so if you're not interested, feel free to say so and we'll skip this section.


 * Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.
 * Rollback should only be used in cases of obvious vandalism or other bad faith behavior that doesn't need explanation. It should not be used in situations where not leaving an edit summary could be considered rude, such as when reverting good faith but unhelpful edits, or edits with which you disagree.

✅ Use it to revert blatant, obvious vandalism.


 * Hopefully this will never happen, but it does occasionally. If you accidentally use rollback, what should you do?
 * Manually revert myself. (Using rollback is also OK but it can confuse others.)

Never use rollback to revert an accidental rollback, per what you said - use twinkle or undo and give an edit summary such as "rv accidental rollback"
 * Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?
 * No (unless using tools that let you do that). ✅

-- Hello, I've marked the section you just completed. This is the last section on theory, after that comes a 5-day monitoring period and then the final exam - passing this will mean graduation from the CVUA. This is on the Rollback user right - it isn't necessary for counter-vandalism work, but it very useful as it is fast and gives you access to automated tools such as Huggle. You can request rollback after completing the above section. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Kleinpecan (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Monitoring period
Congrats, that's the end of the theory! Now that we've been through everything that you need to know as a vandal patroller, you will be given a 5 day monitoring period. During this time, you are free to revert vandalism (and edit Wikipedia) as you normally do; I will monitor your progress in counter-vandalism. If there are any issues, I will raise them with you below and if you have any problems or difficult decisions, you are free to ask them below. After five days, if there's been no major issues, you will take the final test; passing this will mean you graduate from the CVUA. Good luck!

5 day period - Starts 10:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 05:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC) -- Hello Kleinpecan, you can request the rollback permission now if you wish. You're now on a 5 day monitoring period, details above, which precedes the final exam. If you have any questions during the monitoring period, feel free to ping me below - I'll do likewise if I need to let you know about something. Good luck! Pahunkat (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice the monitoring period began and I haven't done anything yet. I guess it should be rescheduled? Kleinpecan (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC).
 * Hello, we can take the five day period from when you next reply to this message in that case. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. Kleinpecan (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have got onto this yesterday but was a bit busy. I'm having a look now. Pahunkat (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I had a look at your reverts and everything seems fine. On a minor note, remember to warn all users - you gave warnings with most of the cases where a warning was required, but in a very few instances you forgot to. You can set up twinkle so that it automatically opens up the user's talk page after a revert if you want, which I have done - whilst I primarily use RedWarn now, I found that doing so helps. Also, with the section "wow!" on your talk page I'd recommend blanking it per WP:DENY instead of retaliating with that userbox, as it is just helping to feed the trolls. When you're ready, we can move on to the final exam. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. Thanks, I will look into the Twinkle settings; and you are right about my talk page&mdash;it was kind of stupid of me to reply to it. I think I am ready for the exam. Kleinpecan (talk) 22:54, 22 May 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?
 * At first I would assume good faith and use Uw-test1. Increase the level and report to AIV if needed. ✅
 * 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?
 * If they added other text to the article, I would leave a custom message on their talk page. If they only added their signature, I would treat this as disruptive editing. Agree with 2nd, as for first I'd probably give warnings on DE as custom messages.
 * 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 somehow related to John Smith, then it is probably a good faith edit, so use Uw-npov1. If the article is unrelated, then the edit is likely vandalism. ✅
 * 1) A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
 * Same as the first question. ✅
 * 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?
 * Check if the information is indeed wrong. If it is, then tell the user to write more descriptive edit summaries, and if it is not, use Uw-delete1 and increase the level if they continue removing it. ✅

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-attempt2. ✅ But make sure the edit was indeed disruptive before warning
 * 1) A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
 * Uw-bes1. /attempt1
 * 1) A user puts "CHRIS IS WEIRD!" on Atlanta Airport.
 * Uw-vandalism2. ✅
 * 1) A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
 * Uw-delete1. ✅
 * 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.
 * 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 them to AIV. ✅
 * 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).
 * Report them to ANI. ✅
 * 1) A user adds a spam link to Horoscope, no previous warnings
 * Uw-spam2. ✅
 * 1) A user removes an AfD notice from an article whilst the discussion is ongoing, they have received a level 2 warning for doing the same thing.
 * Uw-afd3. ✅
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * Uw-test1. ✅

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)!
 * G11. ✅
 * 1) Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
 * A7. ✅
 * 1) Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
 * A1. ✅
 * 1) A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
 * Db-hoax ✅
 * 1) wiki is annoying and useless even I can edit it so dont use it
 * G3. ✅
 * 1) He is an olympic swimmer
 * A1. ✅

Part 4
If they are adding a non-notable entry to that list, no action should be taken - if they are adding a notable one or editing an article about a P Miller then report to UAA where they will be soft-blocked until they can verify their identity or change their username.
 * 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
 * Promotional username that implies shared use. ✅
 * 1) SUBSCRIBETOKURZGESAGT
 * Promotional. ✅
 * 1) Brian's Bot
 * Misleading (unless it's really a bot). ✅
 * 1) sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
 * Disruptive. ✅
 * 1) WikiAdmin
 * Misleading. ✅
 * 1) Coles' Staff
 * Implies shared use. ✅
 * 12:12, 23 June 2012
 * Disruptive. ✅
 * 1) PMiller
 * Leave as is, unless they edit articles related to any P. Millers, in which case it would be a COI.
 * 1) RealDonaldTrump
 * Misleading. ✅

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, unless the vandalism is obvious. ✅
 * 1) Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
 * At WP:AIV. ✅
 * 1) Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
 * At WP:ANI. ✅
 * 1) Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
 * At WP:UAA. ✅
 * 1) Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
 * At WP:ANI or WP:AIV if they are done by a single-purpose account or are especially egregious. ✅
 * 1) Where and how should an edit war be reported?
 * At WP:ANEW. ✅
 * 1) Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
 * At WP:BLPN. ✅

Part 6

 * 1) Find and revert five instances of good faith edits. Place the diffs below.

-- Hello, and good luck! The final exam is above - ping me once finished... Pahunkat (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Find and revert five instances of vandalism. Place the diffs below, along with that for any warnings to the user/reports to AIV issued.
 * Partially done (I have to find three two one more good faith edit but I don't have the time for this right now.) Kleinpecan (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, and sorry for taking so long to do this. Kleinpecan (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Could you please have a look at the question in part 6? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:24, 1 June 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 a score of 98%. Well done!'' Pahunkat (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

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