User talk:Puddleglum2.0/Galendalia CVUA

Hello {{ping|Galendalia, 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. -- Puddleglum {{sup|2.0}} {{sub|(How's my driving?)}} 01:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Communication

Twinkle
Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE and make sure you know how it works. We'll elaborate on it soon, but it is an extremely important tool.in counter vandalism, so it'll be good to have a thorough understanding of it.
 * Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.

It has been enabled since day 1 and I have used it a few times including on the page I linked to you earlier. Please consider this task complete! --Galendalia (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! Let's get started for real! -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 01:55, 26 April 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.

A good faith would be someone who is attempting to make the project/article successful and may not understand the policies or generally accepted practices of WP. Vandalism will be pretty obvious as I have seen people add/modify articles taking out peoples names and putting in explicitives, other peoples name, their own name, etc. A good example is the recent article where the editor states under the section "Personal Life" - "She dated Niall Horan from May 2023 till July 2023, after which they parted ways. They met at one of One Direction's concert. In September of 2023, Spagnol confirmed the rumours that she and her co-star Nathaniel Buzolic, who played her brother on the show were dating. The couple dated till January of 2025. Since April 2025, Spagnol has been in a relationship with Liam Hemsworth. The two met while Fast 10."
 * ✅ All correct -- I think you touched on it briefly, but the difference between good faith and vandalism is the intent. If an edit is intended to build up the encyclopedia (but doesn't) it's going to be good faith, while an edit without the intent to help is vandalism. Does that make sense?


 * 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

So first off I want to say that sometimes deciphering these between a user and an IP address can be hard (so any advice on this part would help me)

I see some possible GF:


 * 19:11, April 25, 2020 diff hist +136‎  r Hop ‎ I added how to hop and my love for hop Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit; while that is great to know that they love hop, it provides nothing to the article
 * ✅ yes -- I might have reverted it as vandalism, but when in doubt, take the safe option and assume good faith.


 * 1) Maratha invasions of Bengal - User is using more descriptive personal terms to describe events (i.e. instead of massacre, they changed it to brutally massacred) as well as numerous other changes in which they put their POV.


 * 1) Ansu Fati - again users asserting POV by stating he is one of the brightest ever

Vandalism:

✅ good report!
 * 1) Glenties - The user  was making blatant edits to the article with changing facts too obvious things like instead of the right town name, changed it to something else; changed what people were known for to things like "two-timer" - I did an undo, reported user and he has been blocked :)


 * 1) The  is obviously vandalism on so many levels - But posted in the article "Doctor FUabcERDAl says putting nitric acid in your eyes while drinking sulphuric acid will cure coronavirus on wheels."
 * ✅ yes, unfortunately there's a lot of that type of misinformation going around currently.


 * 1) Persija Jakarta where  has consistently added the same (or close to the same) content, even after being warned numerous times about vandalism and when the edits were undone, the user would put them back in.
 * ✅ edits cease being in good faith once the editor has been warned against it.

answers above -- fantastic job! I've left notes on some of them, but you obviously have a good understanding of this, so lets move on to the next section! -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 14:18, 26 April 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?


 * Basically two reasons: Blatant issues (vandalism, blogs, hosting websites, destruction of articles). On the flip side, it could be violating any number of policies (mostly repeatedly after receiving appropriate information (Level 1) notice about what they are doing. In my opinion, we should post an information notice (Level 1) before the 1st warning as they may not be familiar with the policies of WP and I have noticed a lot of regular users do not do this and go for the jugular without any particular reason for it so I kindly remind them.
 * ✅ yep -- I would also add that warnings also serve as a kind of paper trails for admins if the offending editors gets reported. It's a way of keeping history of their vandalism.
 * I mentioned that in the substitute template question below :)


 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?


 * "Only Warning – Assumes bad faith, very strong cease and desist, first and only warning. Generally used in the case of excessive or continuous disruption from a user or specific IP." source WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout
 * true, but can you give me a hypothetical example of When you would use one?
 * An example would be for Special:Contributions/81.108.84.222 in which the user has constantly made changes and put in false information. User has actually been issued quite a few warnings
 * ✅ yep.


 * 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!)


 * Some are yes, some are no. I will focus on the ones for purposes fof the CVU. Per the article 'sockpuppet' and similar templates intended to be placed on the top level page in user space. (Note: warnings and notices in the user talk space should be substituted.)" source Substitution. In order to create a substitute you add "subst:" prior to the template (i.e. 'subst:uw-vandalism1') - by creating a substitute, if a change is made to the template (in this example 'uw-vandalism1') it will not update the warning placed on the users talk page leaving it intact and properly recorded for the future and any pending actions or for ARB use in the future as well. *Note that brackets were removed so as to not post them to the page and set off alerts.

1 yup -- actually, every single template you place on a user talk page should be substituted. Twinkle does this automatically, so it shouldn't be that big of a deal.
 * I have to disagree with you on this. Deletion-related templates placed on users talk pages do not get substituted per the linked article
 * ✅ oops, I apologise, my mind was in the counter-vandalism world. =D I guess that's what Twinkle does to you with deletion stuff! You're right.


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


 * They should be placed on the admin notice board for proper blocking (Twinkle automatically does this)


 * ✅ yes, best place to do this is WP:AIV.


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


 * Before I do this, do you need the links or screenshots or anything about this?
 * sorry I didn't make it more clear : for each row, you can replace the "diff" with a diff of your revert; for more on diffs, you can read WP:DIFF. In the section that says "comment", you can put why you think it's vandalism. The other section will be the grade I put in. Hope that makes sense. -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 22:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, answers above. -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 22:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Gotcha ! I added clarifications to your responses above.


 * Completed! --Galendalia (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

looking good ! I'll look in more depth tomorrow morning, when I have more time, just wanted to acknowledge I saw this. -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 04:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * See above. Not much to comment -- great job! let's move on to the next section. -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 17:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, you didn't respond or change the 's above :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galendalia (talk • contribs)
 * done, sorry. -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 00:18, 28 April 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?


 * Articles with high levels of vandalism or edit warring from unregistered and new users; some highly visible templates & modules
 * ✅ keep in mind protection is not preventative.


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


 * Infrequently edited articles with high levels of vandalism or BLP violations from unregistered and new users

I would describe it more as a "constant stream", but yes, that is correct.


 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?


 * Articles with persistent vandalism or edit warring from extended confirmed accounts; critical templates & modules


 * ✅ yup, for full protection, vandalism has to be very serious and with multiple extended confirmed accounts.


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


 * For bad articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated




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


 * Only in severe cases of vandalism or abuse (they are only protected for short durations)




 * 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).


 * Acknowledged

Completed! --Galendalia (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool ; I think you've demonstrated a good understanding, so lets move on to speedies. -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 00:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I copied that directly from the policy, I am confused as to " I would describe it more as a "constant stream", but yes, that is correct." Maybe you can explain the tick colors to me? Thanks --Galendalia (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally think the wording of the policy is a bit unclear -- I personally think that it is the same thing to say that a page should be pending changes protected "if it has seen long-term, infrequent vandalism" or something like that. As for the ticks, ✅ is all correct, is mostly correct but I may have a caveat, and ❌ is incorrect. Does this make sense? -- Puddleglum  2.0 (How's my driving?) 18:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Works for me so I understand! --Galendalia (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * - I have requested semi on Amparo Muñoz due to constant vandalism and such; here was my request "Amparo Muñoz Amparo Muñoz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The constant introduction of vandalism; uncited sources; defamatory comments; POV. Galendalia (talk) 3:10 pm, Today (UTC−7)" I cannot really pull up a diff page showing my request as I do not see it as an option or showing up in the diff history. Also, Drmies is assisting with going through the article to clean it back up as this seems like it has been going on for a while.

And he did it. "15:15, 28 April 2020 Drmies talk contribs protected Amparo Muñoz [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 15:15, 28 July 2020) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 15:15, 28 July 2020) (Persistent sock puppetry) (hist) (thank)" --Galendalia (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.


 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?
 * Patent nonsense, Test pages, Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes, Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Creations by banned or blocked users, Technical deletions, Author requests deletion, Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page, Office actions, Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose, Unambiguous advertising or promotion, Unambiguous copyright infringement, Abandoned Drafts and Articles for creation submissions, Unnecessary disambiguation pages, No context articles, Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project, No content articles, Transwikied articles, No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events), No indication of importance (musical recordings), Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Obviously invented articles, Cross-namespace redirects, Implausible typos redirects, File namespace redirects with names that match Wikimedia Commons pages, Other issues with redirects, Redundant files, Corrupt, missing or empty file, Improper license, Lack of licensing information, Orphaned non-free use images, Missing non-free use rationale, Invalid fair-use claim, Images available as identical copies on Wikimedia Commons, Unambiguous copyright infringement, Useless non-media files, No evidence of permission, Categories, Unpopulated categories, Speedy renaming and merging, User pages by user request, Nonexistent user (user pages), Non-free galleries, Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host, Misrepresentation of policy templates, Duplication and hardcoded instances templates, Any portal that would be subject to speedy deletion as an article, Underpopulated portal, Pages created by the content translation tool.



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
 * G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose (CSD) and user block request



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
 * G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSD); Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion (Lvl 1 unless they have received previous warnings)



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
 * Not adhering to neutral point of view (Lvl 1 unless they have received previous warnings for this); Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons; (Lvl 1 unless they have received previous warnings for this); Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (Lvl 1 unless they have received previous warnings for this); Possibly more. This one I would probably need help with until I get to know policies better. Warn Lvl1 to the user about Creating autobiographies


 * ❌ I would go with A7, no indication of importance.
 * Understood

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.
 * Scenario 4
 * A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events); Also warning to the user for the same issue.


 * ❌ A7 doesn't quite work here -- the ball of fame claim indicates importance. A1 could apply here, but the most uncontroversialnoption would be to redirect it to The Nice.
 * Understood

(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.)

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
 * G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement (CSD); more than likely as I am pretty good at writing and can tell the difference between levels of writing and I would take a sentence and run it through google and if I see a match compare it and if the article matches


 * ✅ even without an All Rights Reserved, material is still copyrighted unless explicitly granted to the public domain.

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.
 * Scenario 6
 * I can definitely inform the user it needs to be in English on the en.wiki; and use the template, and list the page at Pages needing translation into English/Articles by user for review and possible translation.

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
 * Scenario 7
 * This would depend on where it is. It should be in the draft namespace and that would be ok; however, if it is in the main space then a warning (Lvl 1 if no other warning exists of the same nature) about page blanking shall be issued.
 * ❌ so the question says that it is an article, so after waiting a while, the no content criterion would apply here.
 * Understood, I feel shortly needs to be better defined, as everyone has a different concept of time. Perhaps a time frame. If they did it an hour ago, I would not do much as something could have interrupted them or they lost internet. However, if it has been a considerable amount of time, like 24 hours, then I would no content (different from my previous of blanking).

A new user creates a user page with nothing but the following content: Jlakjrelekajroi3j192809jowejfldjoifu328ur3pieisgreat
 * Scenario 8
 * CSD for spam and request to block said user
 * you could also inform them and see if they will change it, policy is a lot more lenient with userpages.
 * Understood

How would this scenario be different if the page was created in a different namespace?
 * I would add it to my watch list and see if there is any other action taken on it by user and then make a determination from there as to spam, testing, etc.
 * you could also csd it for G1.
 * Understood


 * - Completed! --Galendalia (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See above, overall nice job, read the notes, inform me when you have read them, and then let's move on to the next section. -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 18:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Completed and read! Marked my comments in blue above.


 * cool -- by the way, I've noticed you've had a couple mispings -- my username has an "l" between the g and the u, making glum, not gum. (Its a reference to a character from C.S. Lewis's book The Silver Chair) I'll get the next section soon... -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 21:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is what happens when I do not copy and paste lol --Galendalia (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Ha! Ok, the next section is there. Only a couple more short sections and we'll get to rollback. -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 23:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW Look at the very first line of this page :) hahahahahhahahaha

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?
 * Send a message to any administrator in either at their talk page or by email, especially if privacy is a concern (and be sure the admin is active). You can also request revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel (of which I have now added the channel to my client).
 * ✅ generally best to email; admin talk pages are usually highly watched, which will result in lots of people seeing it.


 * If you believe that it's so serious it needs oversight, how would you request that?
 * Special:EmailUser/Oversight - Form to send an email (fastest method), and an option is to leave on their talk page at the top - be sure to follow instructions at the top of the form.
 * Direct email to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org
 * IRC to the #wikipedia-en-revdel (only if urgent) (must be in a private chat window)
 * IRC to the #wikimedia-stewards (only for super urgent) (must be in a private chat window)


 * ✅ All correct.

Completed! --Galendalia (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Awesome! Let's move on to the next section, about usernames... -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 01:48, 29 April 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.


 * BGates
 * Would assume they are saying they are Bill Gates; but would not interfere unless they started vandalizing microsoft or microsoft related pages then a violation for UAA
 * ✅ Yup, watch their contribs. Can't report immediately to UAA, as it could be an editor named Bob Gates or something, but yes, just watch.


 * LMedicalCentre
 * Possibly associated with a medical centre and based on the spelling would probably be in Europe (maybe UK) I would need to watch and see what contributions they are making. It could be under promtion, which would be a violation; however, say they are contributing to the COVID page, I would discuss with them changing the user name as it needs to be tied to an individual and not a company (as it would appear to be doing). If they admit it's a company and multiple people are using it then immediate UAA with the conversation in the notes


 * ✅ Yes -- unless it's offensive or impersonation, always wait for an editor to edit before reporting.


 * G1rth Summ1t
 * I ran the name Girth through the active users (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ActiveUsers?username=Girth&wpFormIdentifier=specialactiveusers) and I see there is a Girth Summit who is an admin, I would immediately contact the correct user to see if it is them and if not then I would UAA same if the user name was GlumPuddle2.0; UAA (Trolling)


 * ✅ awesome -- Girth Summit was actually my CVUA trainer. =D


 * JoeAtBurgerKing
 * This should be ok unless his the users only edits are all at BK AND violating policies


 * assuming this was supposed to be ✅?
 * oops, yup.
 * oops, yup.


 * JoeTheSysop
 * Immediate UA for sysop




 * James-the-Chorizard
 * Pokemon fan huh? LOL - I had to look that one up. It would appear it is a fictional name on a pokemon character. UAA for Copyright (Nintendo owns the names of all Pokemon Characters)


 * ✅ not a Pokemon fan, just picked a random username for a deep cut. =) I believe is the editor.


 * D0naldTrump
 * No offense but I could care less lol - Immediate Block UAA obvious reasons


 * ✅ ha, yup.


 * FuckAllYouAssholes
 * Again, obvious reasons - Immediate UAA


 * ✅ of course.


 * Oshwaah
 * So not touching that account! His hair! LOL - He is a valid admin and oversight on the RU WP - pretty sure he is OK


 * ✅ assuming sarcasm, correct, lol.
 * Yes sarcasm is correct!


 * Should offer the chance to rename based on Non-script usernames, if they refuse then UAA
 * Should offer the chance to rename based on Non-script usernames, if they refuse then UAA


 * ✅ yes, emojis are usually disruptive, but there has been one admin at least with an emoji username.


 * So I do have a question - When I see "19:36, 28 April 2020 User account Seabia talk contribs was created automatically" in the log, what does "created automatically" mean?
 * I'd actually have to look into that more -- the username log is not my forté. I'll notify you if I find out.

- Completed! See question in blue please right above this please.--Galendalia (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * above. -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 03:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

'''Correctly report an offensive user to UAA. As with the Protection question, you can take however long on this, but ping me here with a diff of the report when you're ready.'''
 * I have actually done this quite a few times already reference the section on Vandalism above where I reported 2 of the 3 users listed. I have also reported numerous others.

✅ works for me!

see above statements please

Thank you so much! GalendaliaChat Me Up 17:13, 1 May 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?
 * If it is at me directly or someone I personally know and local I would call 911. Otherwise, email emergency@wikimedia.org (or using the form at Special:EmailUser/Emergency). Include the name of the page where the threat was made or a diff; do not email others at the foundation or call them; they will ack the email pretty fast. You should also notify administrators via email (not through any public high visibility) or via IRC (either the dev channel mentioned earlier or if that fails, hit up the stewards channel mentioned earlier); Also, request oversight.


 * ✅ yes.


 * 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)?
 * See the above response!


 * ✅ If you have time, specify that you only think it may be a threat.

- Completed! --Galendalia (talk) 04:16, 29 April 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?
 * Do not feed the trolls. LOL. The very first line of the page states the reason which is basically is a great summation. However to quote the page "This glorification of vandalism through infamy encourages Internet memes through reinforcement, where users imitate notorious or unique vandalism methods for amusement, to share in the infamy, or for the thrill of defying authority and/or interfering in other users' work. Denying recognition and infamy neutralizes common primary motivators for vandalism and disruption." Source Deny recognition


 * ✅ yup.


 * 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.)
 * 1. I have already done this on numerous occasions. What I look at is as follows:
 * What is it they added?
 * The wording of the edits (does it seem legitimate, is it cited, is it adding value to the article, is it clear vandalism?
 * When was the account created (for those with accounts) and their contributions or is it an IP address?
 * Is it a sockpuppet?
 * What article was it (i.e. popular people, famous people, etc.)


 * 2. Now as far as them harassing or questioning me:
 * It would be based on #1 above
 * If they are trolling I would WP:ANI and not engage and once they have been blocked, I would close the talk and let it get archived. Actually a few of us reported someone on Monday for attacking an admin who reverted the article numerous times and the individual kept posting to the admins' talk page and changing the article to WP:PA the admin. This is hard to tell who is a he or she; I have to keep changing my wording to keep it correct until I know Confused.png.
 * If it is a good faith I would assist the user in understanding why and point them to the articles and/or policies (I am working on building a list for responses). I would also continue to assist them if I can or point them to the correct group (i.e. help desk, blp, science, etc.) for further assistance.


 * ✅ good answer! -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 22:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

^^^ -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 15:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC) - Completed! --Galendalia (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

awesome, see below. -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 22:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you sir or ma'am? I am sir or Chuck. Smile_eye.png
 * ma'am; a handy way to address editors with their "preferred pronoun" is the use of the they template -- i.e. they will result in they. It finds what you've entered into the preferred pronoun section of your preferences. Also - remember that pings won't go through if you don't sign, just fyi. -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 15:33, 30 April 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 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.


 * 1. When to use it:
 * Any posts that User:Puddleglum2.0 does! Sarcastic.gif
 * Obvious vandalism and it is "absolutely" as to the reason
 * Edits in my own user pages
 * Edits that I accidentally made (hey I try to be perfect but yeah we know that is not possible)
 * Reverting edits made by blocked or banned users in defiance of said user status and clearly explain why in the reason
 * Revert widespread edits by a malfunctioning bot or 'misguided' edit (I would get an administrator involved in this though)


 * Note: Be sure the rollback does not violate the policies of WP - This actually happened recently where an administrator and I performed a rollback at the same time and it introduced the vandalism again and the administrator placed a warning on my page for vandalism so I kindly explained what happened and we got it corrected.


 * 2. When not to use it:
 * WP:GF that I disagree with
 * Anything not listed above




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


 * Manually revert it and in the edit reason state "Self-revert accidental use of rollback" or something to that effect


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


 * No, you should do Undo and leave an edit summary and explain on the users talk page why you did (though if it is just something minor, like grammar, punctuation, etc., I can just go in and fix it.)



- Completed! --Galendalia (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * cool -- final exam below! Take as much time as you want. -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 15:30, 30 April 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
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?
 * 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).
 * For the first time, I would undo and warn with uw-test1; if they continue and/or revert the changes, the levels would go up and if they revert again after final warning I would WP:AIV them with the list of diffs.

2. A user adds their signature to an article after once being given a Uw-articlesig warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?
 * So this took some time as I cannot find that template in TW but then I was able to find it by clicking your provided link (it should actually be ) (PS: I started a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Signature_in_Articles to see why it is not on there.); This would then turn into a discussion with the user to ensure they understand why we do not allow them in the articles by linking them to the When to use and not use signatures. If they persist after this I will jump up the lvl's so they get the hint. If they still continue, it will be AIV.
 * ✅ Thanks for starting the thread -- I'm curious too!

3. A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?
 * I would start by looking at the article and seeing if it is about John Smith. If it is, undo as a good faith and send a notice (open a discussion with user) and see what it going on. However, if it seems malicious, I would revert and give them a uw-disruptive1 and then typical policy including trying to have a discussion with them. Until it gets to the point of AIV.

4. A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
 * I would say a test, so I would uw-test1 and undo it; however, if they are doing this to numerous articles or if in batches, I would AIV for next steps as it may be a spambot or something.

5. A user removes sourced information from an article, with the summary 'this is wrong'. First time, and after that? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions?
 * First and foremost, I think I would need to take time to see what it is they are doing and why (basically investigate it). If obvious vandalism I would uw-delete1 and follow normal policy in escalation and discussion; if they have been on making positive contributions; I would ask them to make sure they say in the edit comments why specifically they are making changes instead of just saying it is wrong and removing the unsourced content. Of course, I would also perform an undo and ask them not to undo my undo until we decide on which course to take through a civil conversation.
 * ✅ you can also notify them of WP:OR.

Part 2

 * Which templates warning would give an editor in the following scenarios. If you don't believe a template warning is appropriate outline the steps (for example what you would say) you would take instead.
 * 1) A user blanks Cheesecake.
 * uw-blank1


 * 1) A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
 * uw-attempt1


 * 1) A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
 * uw-efsummary


 * 1) A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
 * uw-vandalism


 * 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-test1?
 * ✅ maybe also just a vandalism warning.


 * 1) A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
 * I would wait a couple minutes and see if user adds a source, if not, uw-biog1
 * if they don't add d a source with the same edit, revert and warm with the defamatory warning, which also warns the offending editor of the WP:BLP policy.


 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
 * I would revert; uw-delete1 and add a note about they need to use their sandbox and not blank the article. TW allows you to add this.
 * '❌ if it's the fifth time,. a 4im warning would be best.


 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
 * Straight to AIV with the link to the users talk page and the diffs


 * 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).
 * Off to AIV I go! (unless it is you, I will allow it since you trained me on all I know) :) May even have to hit up the admins in irc or stewards
 * ✅ lol -- now I want to try it. Probably not worth it to bother the stewards, it's just petty vandalism.


 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * More than likely that file name is either taken or blocked, but if not, I would need to see what it is and if it is not related to Taoism, then I would revert and uw-image1 and if it is a COPYVIO then I would also CSD the file
 * ❌ If it's Example.jpg, (literally simply an example image) probably just revert as a test edit.

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 !
 * This could be a test or draft so I would need to look at the page and see how long ago the edit was. This may fall under A1, A7, or A11
 * A1.


 * 1) A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
 * Wow how did they find that out about me already? :) So Google has a few hits on the name "Smadoodle" but none of any importance (a gamer in pakistan, some girl named Rachel Reynolds, and a PS4 player {probably same as first person I listed}). I would have to A11 this.
 * A 11 might work, but G3 would be better.


 * 1) Fuck Wiki!
 * Double whammy!!!!! Db-g3 and Db-vandalism
 * ✅ yup!

Part 4

 * Are the following new (logged in) usernames violations of the username policy? Describe why or why not and what you would do about it (if they are a breach).
 * 1) TheMainStreetBand
 * uw-coi-username (This could be one or both of conflict of interest and informs them about the username policy since this could be a shared account). They may even be using this for self-promotion or creating a page about their band (hence the COI).


 * 1) Fartypants
 * Kinda funny, I would send them a recommendation to request a username change, but I would not actively follow up on it as it is kinda a joke name and nothing says we can't have a name like that (even though some may take offense, but oh well.)


 * 1) Brian's Bot
 * As Deborah Cox would say Absolutely Not - UAA for 'Bot' in the name.


 * 1) sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
 * Really no issues, as it does not violate anything, however, I would template them about how to request a user name change but would also add to my watch list to see what they edit and take it from there
 * ✅ that would work, although you would be justified in reported them to UAA if they make bad edits as a disruptive username.


 * 1) WikiAdmin
 * Again, as Deborah Cox would say Absolutely Not - UAA for representation that user is the wikiadmin


 * 12:12, 23 June 2012
 * Impersonating a time stamp so adios UAA


 * 1) PMiller
 * No issues with this (I ran through active users and do not see this name taken). It does not violate any user name policies.


 * 1) OfficialJustinBieber
 * Not happening, as name implies it could be him or his staff UAA

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)?
 * Nope
 * ❌ it is actually possible, especially when reverting less-than-obvious vandalism; other users may just see you reverting a lot and report you for violating the WP:3RR rule. (Its happened to me!) Likely nothing will come of the report, but something to keep in mind.


 * 1) Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
 * WP:AIV with the diff logs and why I see it as VA-only


 * 1) Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
 * WP:ANI with a detailed description that explains who, what, where, and when (can't add the why because I am not the user)


 * 1) Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
 * WP:UAA with reasoning (as does everything we do)


 * 1) Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
 * Depends on how bad it is, if it is bad I will report, however, I am under no obligation to just report it if it happens to me and I would do that through WP:ANI


 * 1) Where and how should an edit war be reported?
 * WP:AN/3 - But there could be a possibility of giving them a warning and opening a discussion first to discuss this as the idea is not to lose people but to gain people to help edit articles and such
 * ✅ always try negotiating first.


 * 1) Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
 * WP:BLN and by following the instructions as I have not done this yet (at least I don't think I have)
 * ✅ IRC would also work.

- Completed sir/ma'am! --GalendaliaChat Me Up 23:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See above section lol. I'll take a look. -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 00:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - Thanks ma'am! It took me a bit to figure out what you were talking about because you didn't say where to look, just "see above section" lol GalendaliaChat Me Up 00:53, 1 May 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 94%. Well done! -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 17:09, 1 May 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). :


 * ✅✅✅ Thank you so much for your guidance and feedback! --GalendaliaChat Me Up 17:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)