User:Girth Summit/CVUA/Flalf

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

How to use this page

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.

The CVUA curriculum

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.

Communication

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. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The start[edit]

Twinkle[edit]

Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.

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

I have enabled Twinkle and read WP:Twinkle. I still don't know how to use it though... Flalf (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

OK - most of it is pretty straightforward - basically, you should not see a little 'TW' menu near the top of the screen (next to 'Search Wikipedia'). If you click on it, you will see a list of options for things Twinkle can do for you. It's context-sensitive, so the list of options changes depending on what sort of page you're on - if you're on someone's talk page, for example, it will allow you to give them a welcome message, or a warning, or indeed report them to AIV, WP:SPI, etc. If you are looking at a revision, it will also allow you to revert changes much more easily. Let's test that - I'm going to do add a bunch of random characters to this page in my next edit. Go into the editing history, look at the diff of my edit, and revert it using the blue 'Rollback' option, leaving an edit summary along the lines of 'Revert test'. You'll see that it will automatically take you to my talk page - give me a level 1 'test edit' warning. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

seruhgseruighearngeairulibgzdbgi,fdziugbfklugfiugshrngiuershvmgu hr

@Girth Summit: it automatically tried to revert both edits and my computer blocked the redirect to you talk page. :( Flalf (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my bad - I should have realised that Twinkle would automatically rollback both of the edits. I'll do another test edit - this time, use the brown 'restore this version' option, on the left hand side, to just revert one of my edits. First, try to change your browser settings to allow pop-ups. You will definitely want to allow Twinkle to automatically open user talk pages if you are going to do CV work here. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Done, I think. Flalf (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep, your revert of my edit, and your templated message, worked just fine (despite attracting a few comments from talk page watchers!). We'll discuss reverting a bit shortly, but first - see the next section below. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism[edit]

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 in your own words the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and the things you would consider when deciding whether an edit was good faith or vandalism.

Good faith edits are edits that, while not constructive, are made with the intent of improving the page on which it is done. Vandalism is editing which is intended to be disruptive and to hinder the work of other editors.

There are multiple ways of checking if an edit is vandalism or good faith, the methods I normally use are:

In obvious cases just reading the edit can be an indicator that it is intentionally malicious

Look at edit summary and history

Look at the user contributions and talk page to see if they are a repeat offender
Look for sources (in less obvious cases of false plausible facts)

Good - you're right about intent being the important factor, and these are all sensible things to look at. Sometimes it's just obvious - there's no way in which adding something along the lines of "I fcuked your mom!! LOL X)" could be added either accidentally, or with the intention of making the article better. Other times it's less clearcut however. Random characters being added (or text being removed) once or twice could be someone just testing to see whether they really can edit a page - but if someone is doing it repeatedly, it starts to look malicious. And you're right - sometimes people make subtle changes, which on the face of them may be correct, and which require you to check the source. Do it once - maybe it's just a mistake. Do it several times in a row, and it's likely a subtle vandal.

So, this is where AGF comes in. If it's totally obvious, we treat it as vandalism from the word go; if it's not so obvious, we still revert, but we handle it a bit differently, leaving a brief edit summary and choosing an appropriate warning message. We'll cover that in a bit detail in the next section, but first, look at this next task... GirthSummit _(blether) 18:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Vandalism Examples

Added Mary Lou McDonald as leader of the Provisional Irish Republican Army

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army&oldid=942235778

Interesting - this one is worth discussing. Mary Lou McDonald is the new head of Sinn Féin, which has indeed been historically linked to the Provisional IRA. It's a stretch to say that she is the new leader, but I'm not sure I'd characterise this is outright vandalism - more like WP:POV editing. I note that the person who reverted this left an edit summmary explaining why they did so - I would do likewise in this case. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Renamed Ryoyu Kobayashi as 'Kobe Mama Briant'

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryoyu_Kobayashi&oldid=942474128

So, I had to Google Kobe Mamba Briant to find out what that meant - seems to be a reference to a basketball player, who obviously has nothing to do with this article, so yes, this is probably vandalism. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Renamed Porsche Macan as 'Porsche Kobe Black Mamba Macan'

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Porsche_Macan&oldid=942474463

The same IP address as your previous example - same vandal. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Good Faith Examples

An IP added a name to Trent (name) which did not follow the notability rules of name articles (Name must have article on it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trent_(name)&oldid=942477798

Yes - not vandalism, but no reason to include that name in the list. Personally, rather than saying that the person isn't notable (maybe he is and we just don't have an article yet), I'd have said 'No article to link to yet' in my edit summary.

This actually has a long backstory see discussion and while this may be a shining example of my incompetency- I was in the right despite my failure to articulate it. User:Scolaire was trying to improve the article despite his grammatical mistake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sinn_F%C3%A9in&oldid=941467168

Well, it's certainly not vandalism; I can't see why it needed to be reverted though. I see there is an ongoing discussion at the talk page, which I don't really have time to read through thoroughly, but I can't see anything wrong with the sentence as it was originally worded. I'll add that your version used a contraction (didn't), which isn't compliant with MOS:N'T - purely from a grammar/MOS-compliance perspective, Scolaire's version of the sentence looks better to me. I'd caution you gently about your engagement on that page and its talk page - Scolaire is a very experienced editor, with >26,000 edits going back to the early days of Wikipedia - you could learn a lot from them, but you were a little strident in how you expressed yourself on the talk page, and the discussion got more heated that I'd be comfortable with. There's nothing wrong with enthusiasm and jumping in with both feet, but I'd urge you to be prepared to step back and listen to the old hands - they are very often right. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I did in fact mess up on the original version of my edit- and Scolaire pointed that out to me- but the sentence was in fact a run on. 'A motion to permit entry into the Dáil was allowed at the 1985 Ard Fheis, but without the active support of the leadership, and Adams did not speak. The motion failed narrowly.' The phrase 'and Adams did not speak' is pasted on the end and I ended up digging myself into a hole. Flalf^Talk 14:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Flalf Well, as I read it, but without the active support of the leadership is acting as an adverbal phrase there, describing how the motion passed, and then and Adams did not speak is a clause in its own right, adding additional (but related) information. I guess you could argue that the sentence is awkward and could be improved upon - after all, if two native speakers of a language disagree on whether a sentence is grammatical, it's a pretty good indication that it could be phrased better - but I wouldn't revert another editor because I don't like their sentence construction. Anyway, I don't think we need to flog this to death - let's move on. I'll add the next task in my next comment. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Person is considered Scottish, should be labeled as born in Scotland, not UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eileen_McCallum&oldid=942755696

As a Glaswegian myself, I agree that it should be Glasgow, Scotland, rather than Glasgow, UK. This is an issue of editorial judgement though, since both statements are technically correct. My feeling is that most sources would likely refer to Glasgow as a Scottish rather than a British city, and if the subject of this article has publicly identified as Scottish then that would be the better word to use, but it's the sort of thing that would need to be decided by a talk page consensus. A good edit summary for something like that would be 'Restoring 'Scottish' - please discuss on the talk page if you think this should be changed'. Be careful not to get into an edit war about something like this though - we'll get into that in more detail later in the course.

@Girth Summit: What do I do now? Flalf^Talk 16:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Flalf Thanks for the ping - just stand by, I should have time to review these over the weekend and give you some feedback. Cool new sig by the way, I like it! GirthSummit _(blether) 16:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Alright, sorry to bother and thanks.

OK Flalf, see my comments above. Happy to discuss any of them further if you have any questions, or we can move on. Just a couple of housekeeping points:

Pings only work if you sign your post in the same edit as you add the ping - I didn't receive the last one because the comment was unsigned. If you forget to sign, you need to add a new ping, and a new signature, on a new line. See WP:PING for more on this. It would be helpful if you ping me when you finish each task - my watchlist currently has >18,000 articles on it, so is totally useless for keeping track of ongoing discussions!
The links you gave above aren't the easiest way to examine diffs. Please post diffs by comparing the two versions of an article and copying the link - this is an example of what I mean - it means I can quickly see the changes that you are talking about, and assess whether they are vandalism or not very easily.

Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Flalf Next section below... GirthSummit _(blether) 23:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Warning and reporting[edit]

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?

arnings are to show users that we are aware of their negative editing and that we would like them to stop before further penalties are instituted.

In part, yes, but they serve a number of functions. First, as you say, it says that we are watching and aware of what they're doing, and that they won't be allowed to continue doing it. They also provide links to the appropriate policies and guidelines which spell out exactly why what they are doing is problematic, and may help to put them on the right path. Additionally, it helps other patrollers decide what warning they will give should the behaviour continue, and it creates a sort of 'paper trail' that will make it an easy decision for an admin if they are asked to block the account.

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

4ims are for users who have committed blatant and excessive vandalism.

Yes - only use these in the most egregious cases though. If an editor writes random curse words in an article, it's a regular vandalism warning; if they put racist abuse on a WP:BLP, or unsourced accusations of serious criminality, that's when a 4im warning (vandalism for the first example, adding defamatory content for the second) would be appropriate.

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 you should substitute a template, to do it you add subst: before the page name inside the curly brackets.

Yep. If you use Twinkle to add the warning, you don't need to worry about this.

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

Report to an administrator.

Well, yes, but the best thing to do is to report at AIV, where any active admin will be able to see it and take action quickly. Again, Twinkle is your friend here - when you're on the user's talk page, select the ARV option from Twinkle, select AIV, then just tick a couple of boxes and you're done.

Alright, done! Flalf^Talk 15:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Good stuff - feedback above, I'll add the next section shortly. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks!

Flalf OK - time to get to work! See the table below - let me know if you need any help with the formatting to allow you to fill it in. Note that, while this task is primarily about finding and reverting VANDALISM, it's not a problem if you include one or two good faith reverts as well, or anything that you feel is borderline. If in any doubt, do a 'blue' revert, and leave an edit summary. If any questions come up while you're working, ping me from here. Good luck !GirthSummit _(blether) 20:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

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

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff	Trainer's Comment
1	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xu_Ning&diff=prev&oldid=944239197	IP kept editing a character as a fool (er bai wu) and I did WP:AGF at first but after repeating I issued a warning.	Y Yes - this is silly vandalism, probably a kid making fun of one of their friends.
2	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Champ_(food)&diff=prev&oldid=944241872	Added criticism to food.	Y
3	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faust&diff=prev&oldid=944242418 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faust&diff=prev&oldid=944242654	Called german legendary character a 'boomer' which led to me leaving a notice, and after noticing they were a repeat offender I reported to an administrator which resulted in a block.	Y I don't know what a boomer is, but this certainly looks like vandalism to me.
4	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tesco_International_operations&diff=prev&oldid=948521467	Remade Tesco into an a fascist global superpower.	Y Seems improbable...
5	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:The_world_will_definetly_end_on_29th_of_april_2020&diff=prev&oldid=948522761	claims the world will end on the 19th of april	Y Looks like a (badly spelled) April's fool joke. Given that we're now into May, seems like they were wrong.
6	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Food_porn&diff=prev&oldid=953773187	Renamed foodporn to foodpoop (warned)	Y
7	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Food_porn&diff=prev&oldid=953773225	After I sent a warning, and after receiving another final warning yesterday they proceeded to again rename foodporn to foodpoop which I reported to an admin for being a repeat offender.	Y I see they were blocked for a week, and started vandalising again after being unblocked.
8	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Hopkins_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=954143529	Assorted vandalism, five edits reverted (warned)	Y
9	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Hopkins_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=954143529	Vandalised twice more after warning- gave final warning	Y They were blocked shortly afterwards too.
10	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Touhou_Project_characters&diff=prev&oldid=954178911	Called a Touhou character a child of Dio.	? I don't know what any of that means. Could these not be characters from the same game? Or some related show or something? I know nothing about any of this, just wondered.

Sorry this is taking a while! Flalf^Talk 06:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Finished! Sorry it took so long! Flalf^Talk 02:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Flalf Sorry to have kept you waiting, I didn't get either of those pings for some reason (or if I did, they got buried under a load of other notifications) - see my comments above, just one query on the final one (I'm not saying you were wrong, I just don't know what any of that means). Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: The last on is saying a character is a child of a character of another show- normally I would AGF it but the character from the other show is commonly used in memes and was so out of place I deduced that it was likely vandalism. Also, it's okay you didn't get the notifications, it took me way too long to complete that section anyway! Flalf^Talk 21:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Flalf OK, that makes sense - yeah, if memes are involved, it's likely silly vandalism, so I'll trust your judgement on that one. OK, onto the next section then... GirthSummit _(blether) 15:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion[edit]

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[edit]

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?: Persistent vandalism or edit wars from new users or IPs.

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?: Articles that are not edited often but are subject to BLP violations and vandalism from new users or IPs.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?: Articles with constant edit warring or vandalism from extended confirmed users.

In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?: Prevent frequently created bad articles.

In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?: Persistent vandalism from new users or IPs.

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).

@Girth Summit: I finished with the exception of the requesting protection. Thanks! Flalf^Talk 14:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep - that's about right. No rush to request page protection, just let me know when you've done one by adding it below with a ping. Next section awaits...

GirthSummit _(blether) 15:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

@Girth Summit: Wait there are a lot of circumstances, this is actually something I am familiar with (I have WP:SD bookmarked on my computer) do I list out just the General criteria all of the criteria or what? Flalf^Talk 15:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to list all the criteria - give a summary of the overall reasons why we have speedy deletion options, and perhaps give some examples of commonly used criteria. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: For the general ones it's mostly vandalism/intentional problems, (which G1, G3, G10, G12) "User Problems", (G2, G4, G5, G11, G13, and G14) and the rest (G6, G7, G8, and G9) fall under a sort of miscellaneous category. If I messed up while sorting them then I'm sorry I rushed this a bit. Flalf^Talk 17:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Flalf OK, well you listed the 'general' ones there - those can be applied to any page. Note that there are others - the ones that start with an A can only be applied in article space - you can't ask for a draft to be deleted per A7, for example. Similarly, the ones that start with U are only applicable in user space - U5 is very common for people misusing their userpages (as is G11). There are a few others as well that are just for use with files, redirects and the like. When nominating pages for speedy deletion, be sure that anything clearly meets the criteria as set out on CSD - if in doubt, send it to AfD or wherever so a discussion can take place. Let's try some examples... GirthSummit _(blether) 08:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion examples[edit]

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.

Scenario 1

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.

G10 - This is an attack on a person.

Scenario 2

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.

G11 - This is self promotion.

Scenario 3

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.

A7 - This wouldn't be notable enough for an article

Scenario 4

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.

A7 - Bazz envies lemmy for being notable.

OK, this one is worth unpacking a bit. 'Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie' - that's potentially a credible claim of significance - strictly speaking, that would invalidate an A7. There are a bunch of options for what you could do here - potentially a PROD, or BLPPROD if you could establish they were still alive, but another options would be to set up a WP:REDIRECT - if you search for Bazz Ward, you'll find that they are a real person, mentioned in our article about The Nice - redirecting to that page would be a better option than deleting.

(Attribution: Ritchie333 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 5

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?

If it says all rights reserved, it's a G12. If it doesn't, it's still a G12. We assume copyright applies unless there is a clear disclaimer on the page saying what sort of licence it is released under - and almost always, that will be a licence that requires attribution. If in doubt, tag it, and the reviewing admin will check whether it's properly tagged.

Scenario 6

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

A2 if it has content that is similar to an other language wikipedia otherwise tag as not english

, although it's worth putting it into Google Translate first and seeing what it says. Very often these are promo, and occasionally attack pages - if it looks like that, tag as appropriate.

Scenario 7

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

A3 - has no content

That might work, depending on what the content of the article was before the blanking, but really it's a G7 - we interpret blanking by the author as a request to delete.

Scenario 8

A new user creates a user page with nothing but the following content:

Jlakjrelekajroi3j192809jowejfldjoifu328ur3pieisgreat

Nothing as this is on a user page

How would this scenario be different if the page was created in a different namespace?

As in mainspace? If it's that then it's a G1.

@Girth Summit: I think I'm finished. Flalf^Talk 15:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Pretty good Flalf - a couple of things to be aware of, but you seem to have a good grasp of these. I'll upload the next task tomorrow - cheers, GirthSummit _(blether) 17:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

<Thanks! I'll review the ones I messed up on! Flalf^Talk 18:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You didn't mess up - just some stuff to consider. The one about Bazz Ward is a bit of a trick question (that's why there's a hint), not many people pick up on that. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Flalf See below... GirthSummit _(blether) 15:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Revision Deletion and Oversight[edit]

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?

I would email an administrator on the Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests per Wikipedia:Revision deletion.

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

I would email User:Oversight per Wikipedia:Revision deletion

@Girth Summit: It's been awhile, but, I did it! Thanks! Flalf^Talk 14:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, good to hear from you again Flalf. These answers are correct - however, if you use IRC, you might consider going onto the revdel channel and asking for it there, in my experience that's usually the quickest way to get stuff cleared out. If you're looking for regular revdel, just give the URL to a diff; if you're needing oversight type !oversight and wait for someone to respond. E-mail is fine if you're not comfortable with IRC though. Let me check to see where we're up to with this course... GirthSummit _(blether) 14:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes - usernames... GirthSummit _(blether) 14:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Usernames[edit]

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:

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.

Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particular attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.

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 - This is a misleading username that is meant to impersonate Bill Gates, would open an RfC

There's not enough in the user name to go on. This could easily be Brenda, or Barry, or Bob Gates, using their real name - it could even be a real Bill Gates, just not the Microsoft founder. The thing to do is look at their editing - are they editing pages concerning Microsoft, or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or similar? If so, and their edits even vaguely suggest that they are attempting to impersonate that Bill, then report to UAA for impersonation; if their edits look fine, just leave them alone.

LMedicalCentre - Is the name of a company and would be advertising, would report at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Yes, but still check their edits - I would expect to see an account name like that writing about their medical centre (probably in user or draft space), in which case it would warrant a report. Don't report names like that until they actually edit though.

G1rth Summ1t - Potentially harassment/similar name could cause confusion, would RfC

So, names like this come up semi-regularly - I've been targeted more than once, and I've caught lots of usernames targeting other editors, especially prolific admins or counter vandalism editors. There's no good faith explanation for choosing a username that close to someone else's - report to UAA immediately, even if they haven't edited yet, it's certain to be trolling/harassment.

JoeAtBurgerKing - Might not do anything as it implies a specific person which should be okay.

Spot on - this is explicitly permitted. They clearly have a WP:COI though, so I would drop them a welcome message and a note pointing them towards COI and PAID.

JoeTheSysop - Misleading username implies they are a sysop, would report at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Yep, expressly prohibited, report.

Flaalf - Potentially harassment/similar name could cause confusion, would RfC

As above, report immediately - this doesn't need discussion.

D0naldTrump - This is a misleading username that is meant to impersonate Donald Trump, would report at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Yes - unlike BGates above, this is less ambiguous, it would be blocked.

FuckAllYouAssholes - Inappropriate username would report at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Yes - this is immediately blockable, they're not here for any good purpose. Depending on how offensive a username is, you may wish not to wait for it to edit. Anything that targets an individual, or uses hate speech, just report directly without waiting.

Oshwaah - Potentially harassment/similar name could cause confusion, would RfC

Sorry, I didn't realise I'd put three examples like this in here, but as above...

😜 - Emojis are not to be used in usernames,

True - but that rule isn't enforceable by blocks, so this is the one where you should start an RfC about a change, if it bothered you.

@Girth Summit: Completed! Thank you for the quick response to my edits earlier! Flalf^Talk 17:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Woah! Slow down there Flalf - you're on fire! OK, see my comments above - I'll upload the next section tomorrow. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yikes - sorry Flalf, just realised that I forgot to come back and add that section. Here it is. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Emergencies[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm carefully and respond to the questions below.

Who should you contact when you encounter a threat of harm on Wikipedia? What details should you include in your message?

I would email emergency@wikimedia.org and in the email I would include the diff of the edit.

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)?

All threats should be taken seriously.

@Girth Summit: Done again! Flalf^Talk 12:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This is correct Flalf - or at least, it's the official guidance. Use your own best judgement, of course - for ridiculous, obviously unactionable threats (random IPs shouting 'I will fucking kill anyone who changes this' in an edit summary, that sort of thing) I confess that I will just block without e-mailing emergencies, so you might want to consider reporting to AIV and leaving it for an admin to decide - but for anything you feel even slightly might be credible, or anything that is directed towards a specific individual, then yes, report to emergencies. Next section below... GirthSummit _(blether) 13:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users[edit]

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?

Trolls and vandals often enjoy bothering people or disrupting things, by not giving them attention and quickly dealing with them they will get bored.

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.)

In some cases it is hard to tell whether it is vandalism or not, but per WP:AGF I assume the user is working for the benefit of the project unless I see proof that they are doing otherwise. Flalf^Talk 15:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Done! Flalf^Talk 15:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

FlalfYour first answer is absolutely correct - a lot of people do vandalism because they are looking for conflict, they are literally looking for hostile interaction with someone. If you give them what they want, they will continue to pester you, and to disrupt the project. Don't give them what they want - just give them automated templates, and if they persist they'll be blocked, and we all move on.

Your second answer touches on AGF, which is good. One trap that a lot of people fall into with this question is to talk about whether the person on your talk page is abusive or shouty - that actually doesn't tell us very much. If a good faith user comes to your talk after you reverted them, they might be pissed off because you undid their change. People often don't behave optimally when they're angry, and they might be rude; that doesn't make them a vandal. The trick is to be professional and dispassionate: go back to look at your revert, and at their editing history. If you think they are a vandal yanking your chain, report them. If you think they are a good faith user who made a bad edit, and that your revert was correct, ignore their rudeness and explain politely why you did it; if they continue harassing you about it, that can be dealt with, but usually they calm down if you explain what you did. If you screwed up (that happens to everyone!), just apologise, immediately and profusely. Tell them that you misread their edit, and revert yourself if they haven't done it already. Don't engage with any of their angry venting, it's not worth it - a quick apology for an honest mistake should be sufficient for anyone, and they usually calm down once one has been offered.

The next section is the last one on this course - it covers the rollback user permission. After that's dealt with, there's just... the final exam! (Which, I am sure, you will pass with ease.) Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

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

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

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

Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.

Wikipedia:Rollback states that the rollback button may be used to revert blatant vandalism, edits to your userpage, your own edits, edits by banned or blocked users, or to revert widespread edits that are unhelpful to wikipedia.

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

Self revert and explain it was an accident, or if it was going to be good faith reverted anyway make a dummy edit with an edit summary explaining why.

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

No, because rollback leaves a generic edit summary.

@Girth Summit: Done! Should I apply for rollback permissions now or wait until after the final assessment? Flalf^Talk 18:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Flalf Hey - sorry for the slow response, work is crazy at the moment. Yes, these answers are correct - go ahead and apply for rollback now, ping me and I'll note my support. Technically I could apply it myself, but I usually allow another admin to review since you and I have been working closely together.

When you're ready, the final exam for the course is below. There's no rush to complete it - go through it at your own pace and ping me when you're done. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Final Exam[edit]

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[edit]

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).

A user adds 'What does this button do?' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
This would be a good faith edit, as it could be a mistake or they might not know that the changes save, would revert, if they continue to do it I would warn.
Y Yes, it could be good faith - this should be a revert and a level 1 'test edit' warning. Level 1 warnings aren't meant to be unfriendly or intimidating - they give the user a link to some relevant information, which should help them to learn.
A user inserts '###################################' into an article, having never edited before. Would you treat it differently if they had done the same thing once before?
This would be a good faith edit, as it could be a mistake. If they had done it before I would leave a warning as it looks to be intentional.
Y As above - level 1 test for first time, escalate for repeat occurrences.
A user deletes the first three paragraphs from an article, without leaving an edit summary. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?
This would be a good faith edit, as it could be a mistake, if they continue to do it I would warn.
N You didn't mention looking at the edit itself - is the content sourced? Are the sources reliable? It might be a perfectly valid content removal, you need to check in order to establish whether or not to revert.
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?
I would leave them a {{Uw-disruptive1}} warning, because they have been warned in the past. If they kept doing that my warns would get harsher.
Y Yes. The articlesig is a single-issue warning - if they continue doing it after receiving that, you can use other warnings, disruptive editing is a good choice.
A user removes sourced information from a BLP, with the summary 'this is wrong'. First time, and after that? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions?
I would assume good faith revert and leave a message on their talk page. If they continue to do it, I could warn them for being disruptive and if they violate WP:3RR I would go to WP:ANI. If they have a history of disruptive contributions I would warn them and if they continue I would escalate my warnings or go to ANI.
N Again - this needs investigation. They have actually given a descriptive edit summary, and it's a BLP so we need to be extra careful. Read the content (is it neutrally written?), check out the sources (do they support the content, are they reliable?) - only once you've done that should you consider reverting.

Part 2[edit]

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.

A user blanks Pasta.
{{uw-delete1}}
Y This would be OK, but uw-blank1 would be better.
A user blanks a section of Cricket without giving an explanation.
{{uw-delete1}}
Y
A user adds random characters to Aardvark.
{{uw-disruptive1}}
Y ue-test1 is more appropriate for random characters.
A user adds 'Donald is the best!' to United States.
{{uw-vandalism1}}
Y Yes - uw-npov1 would also work, but this would be so out of place it would be hard to assume good faith.
A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Donald Trump.
{{uw-vandalism1}}
Y I'll give you this one, but do note that we have uw-attempt1 for failed attempts to vandalise.
A user puts "I HATE CHEESE!" on Edam (cheese).
{{uw-vandalism1}}
Y
A user adds 'and he was seen dropping litter in Hyde Park' to Hugh Grant.
{{uw-joke1}}
N I see what you mean, but dropping litter is a crime in the UK, so technically this is unsourced defamation and a BLP violation. Uw-defamatory1 would be more appropriate.
A new user adds curse words to your user page (this is their first edit).
{{uw-npa1}}
Y That would not be inappropriate, but you should also consider whether you've recently had any conflicts where someone is trying to get back at you - a new account would have no reason for vandalising your talk. Feel free to report any stuff like that at AIV or ANI, or at SPI if you have an idea about who it might be.
A user blanks Dell, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
{{uw-vandalism4}}
Y
A user blanks Dell, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
Would report at WP:AIV.
Y

Part 3[edit]

What CSD tag you would put on the following articles? (The content below represents the entire content of the article).

Tim Spinks is the fastest runner in Park Grove School, and won the house cup three years running.
Thought this may have been a claim to notability if this were a college, but the only Park Grove School I found was a primary school so... {{Db-person}}
Y Yes, this is an A7 - being the fastest runner in a school is not a WP:SIGNIF claim.
NCPP Delivery gives fast, efficient delivery service - go to npcc.com for more info!
{{Db-g11}}
Y
Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
{{Db-g1}}
Y You're on the right lines, but this is an A1 not a G1. G1 is for gibberish - random characters - this is comprehensible English, but there isn't enough information to identify the subject they're trying to write about (who is Joe?).
The Island of Orkvanderland is an island three hundred miles off the coast of Western Australia, inhabited by orks.
{{Db-hoax}}
Y
Terry is the a great singer.
{{Db-person}}
Y That would work; A1 would also work (who is Terry), or G11 (the only assertion is subjective puffery).
Fuck all you assholes!
{{Db-g10}}
Y I'll give you that one, but I'd tag that with G3 Vandalism, since the abuse isn't directed at anyone identifiable. 'Fuck Girth Summit', or 'Donald Trump is an asshat' would be G10s.

Part 4[edit]

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).

TheCosmicPatrollers
This username seems fine to me.
Y It's certainly not worth reporting, unless they start editing about a band of that name or similar. The fact that it's pluralised would raise my eyebrows - that's unusual, and might potentially suggest shared use, but I'd keep an eye on their editing and only report if there were other factors.
Poopsniffer
I personally am not a fan of this name, but I found examples of other usernames similar to this which were allowed... would message on talk page and suggest a name change or maybe open an RfC.
Y Yes - offensive usernames can be blocked, but they need to be substantially more offensive than this. However, as with the last one, I'd keep an eye on their editing - nine times out of ten it will be a throwaway vandalism account, so I'd check the contribs and report for vandalism if that's what they were doing.

StopVandalBot
This is a misleading username implies they are a bot. Would take it to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention
Y
Joshtheadmin
This is a misleading username implies they are an admin. Would take it to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention
Y
poiuytrewassdfhukjhgffghjghhkhgfhdrhjjv9876543
Should be fine
YIt's not immediately blockable, but again it's one I'd keep an eye on. If they appeared to be doing good work, I'd drop them a note and suggest that they chance it, since it would be really confusing and hard to type (imagine trying to ping them...). If they refused, I'd go to WP:RFCN. If they were vandalising or editing disruptively, standard procedures would apply.
GeoffBarnes
Should be fine
Y
JeffBridgesFan
Should be fine
Y

Part 5[edit]

Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.

Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
Per WP:Edit Warring there is an exception when reverting obvious vandalism.
Y Be careful - it has to be obvious vandalism, or one of the other exemptions at WP:3RRNO to apply. I've seen too many patrollers get blocked because they allow themselves to forget that in the heat of the moment. POV-pushing, using dodgy sources, that kind of stuff does not give you a 3RR exemption.
Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
I would report at WP:AIV
Y
Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
I would report at WP:ANI
Y
Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
I would report at WP:AIU
Y
Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
I would report at WP:ANI
Y
Where and how should an edit war be reported?
I would report at WP:ANEW
Y
Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
I would report at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (so sad couldn't find a shortened redirect)
Y

@Girth Summit: I have completed it! I hope I did well! Thanks for being such a good instructor! (flattery? what? I would never) Flalf^Talk 17:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Well done Flalf - there are a few answers above that I disagree with, but they aren't major issues, I am happy to graduate you from this course. Please review the comments above for future reference - now to go fill in the paperwork... Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Completion[edit]

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 84%. Well done!

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).
{{User CVUA|graduate}}:

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.

GirthSummit _(blether) 12:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)