User:Mz7/CVUA/Hummerrocket

Hello, welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your academy page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me at my talk page.

Make sure you read through 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.

Once you graduate I will copy this page into your userspace so you have a record of your training and a reference for the future.

The start

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. It is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labelling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.

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

Good faith edits are those that have good intentions, especially from new editors. Their lack of experience just makes their edits unsuitable for Wikipedia. Vandalism is with bad intentions; it is pretty obvious that they know their edits are not constructive.

You can tell good faith from bad especially in an edit war, where the user thinks their information is correct, making it good faith. However, bad faith can have ridiclous incorrect info, and profanity/spam, so that is bad. Also if it's unsourced it is probably good faith.

Hummerrocket (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Y This is the correct understanding. The key is to determine the intentions of the user. A user contributing in good faith intends to help the project, although due to a lack of understanding or experience, they may make mistakes. A user contributing in bad faith (i.e. vandalism) intends to harm Wikipedia. I'm particularly happy that you mentioned edit wars. Indeed, in an edit war, it's very important to avoid accusing the other party of vandalism. Though you may not agree with their version of the content, as long as they believe their version would benefit the project, it is still good-faith editing. Mz7 (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2017 (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.

Good faith

Edit at Alia Bhatt Actually my own LOL. I didn't know about the policies.

Edit at Sultan (2016 film) Unsourced but probably true fact. I should've fixed it myself.

Edit at Superman (1978 film) Tried to expand on plot in good manner. Just was irrelevant.

Hummerrocket (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Edit at Fight Club Obviously bad intentions, since he/she deleted the lead.

Edit at Guy Fieri Inappropriate words and uses flavortown which is obviously incorrect.

Edit at Dangal (film) He literally is including his website.

Hummerrocket (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Y Good work on these questions. Mz7 (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket: I've published your next assignment below. Mz7 (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2017 (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?

We warn them to, first, notify them that their edits are not appropriate for Wikipedia, whether it is good faith or bad. But the key is to make sure they don't repeat their actions, and there should be a positive takeaway from it, as to teach them to make useful contributions rather than act the way they do. Hummerrocket (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Y Indeed. The purpose of warnings is, initially, to educate the users about what constitutes constructive editing and inform them that their editing is disruptive. Oftentimes, we find that users who initially appear to be vandals are merely testing their editing functions, asking, "Can I really edit Wikipedia?" and inserting gibberish. Mz7 (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

It would be appropriate when the user makes multiple non-constructive edits (typically between 2-4) and they are bad intent edits. If they repeat their actions then they will be blocked. Hummerrocket (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Y This is partly correct. Sometimes, even if a vandal makes multiple non-constructive edits, I would still issue a level 1 warning (e.g. {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}) on their first offense if the vandalism was not particularly egregious. Level 4im warnings, which are warnings that go to level 4 immediately (e.g. {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}}), are most effective for cases where the vandalism is either happening very rapidly across a wide variety of pages or is particularly egregious in nature. For example, I would consider a 4im warning appropriate if a vandal is writing harmful content about living persons; Wikipedia is so widely read that its content can actually harm living persons, so if a user is clearly only here to defame or bully a living person, we want to make it clear that this is not tolerated. Mz7 (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?

According to the article on Substitution, it is necessary to substitute a template, and this is so that the text remains static and doesn't change. The template itself can be dynamic and have edits/delets over time, but substituting it makes sure that it remains permanent. To substitute simply put the subst: before the text in the tag.

However, my only question is does Twinkle already use subst for us? That's what I'm confused about. Hummerrocket (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Y This is the correct understanding, and yes, Twinkle will automatically substitute warnings for you. (That's part of the reason why it's so convenient for fighting vandalism!) Mz7 (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

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

One should notify the admins about it and request a block using Twinkle. Hummerrocket (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

? @Hummerrocket: What is the best page on Wikipedia where you can request administrator intervention against vandalism? Alternatively, what feature of Twinkle would you use to to notify administrators of vandalism that warrants a block? Mz7 (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The best place to request intervention is on the page called Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Alternatively, using Twinkle, one can scroll and click APV, and then check the appropriate boxes about the vandalism, even including a comment or linked articles if needed. This should be done on a page of the vandal, so the request will be sent automatically to admins. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Y @Hummerrocket: Next assignment below. Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Please give examples (using {{Tlsubst|''name of template''}}) of three different warnings (not different levels of the same warning and excluding the test edit warning levels referred to below), that you might need to use while recent changes patrolling and explain what they are used for

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

This is used to warn vandals with bad faith edits to not vandalize Wikipedia in the future. It's a pretty generic warning.

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

If someone doesn't remain neutral, especially inserting an opinion. Tells them to remain objective.

Thank you for your contributions, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox instead. Thank you.

When an author inserts inappropriate jokes in the article.

Hummerrocket (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Make sure you keep in mind that some edits that seem like vandalism can be test edits. This happens when a new user is experimenting and makes accidental unconstructive edits. Generally, these should be treated with good faith, especially if it is their first time, and warned gently. The following templates are used for test edits: {{subst:uw-test1}}, {{subst:uw-test2}} and {{subst:uw-test3}}.

I just wanted to make sure you know about Special:RecentChanges, if you use the diff link in a different window or tab you can check a number of revisions much more easily. If you enable Hovercards in the Hover section of your preferences, you can view the diff by just hovering over it. Alternately, you can press control-F or command-F and search for "tag:". some edits get tagged for possible vandalism or section blanking.

Wow, this is a really interesting and useful feature! Thanks for showing me! Hummerrocket (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Y @Hummerrocket: You're welcome! Your next assignment is below. Mz7 (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Find and revert vandalism

Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Please include at least two test edits and at least two appropriate reports to AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff	Mz7's Comment
1	Mummering	Editing test	Y OK
2	Atlantic Hurricane	Information has to do with hurricanes, but is abrupt and doesn't have anything to do with rest of article.	This was a good-faith edit. When reverting good-faith edits, you should generally leave a note in the edit summary explaining why you disagree with it. Twinkle has a "Rollback (AGF)" button when viewing diffs that makes it easy to annotate an edit as reverting a good-faith edit.
3	Stanchion		Y
4	3 Idiots	I'd probably consider this to be an editing test.	Y
5	Hypoactive sexual desire disorder		Y
6	Chris Evert	This one was out of control. Eventually Oshwah had to block it and another IP. Also I made a mistake; I should have used rollback but I only reverted one edit so my reversion was actually bad.	Y Right, the rollback button reverts to the last edit made by a different IP or account, so if a vandal is using multiple IP addresses, you'll have to be sure to revert to the last good version.
7	Sean David Morton		Y These are sometimes tricky, because they can sometimes be genuine editors who believe in their own extreme/minority opinions. In this case, I can see how it can be interpreted as vandalism, but an NPOV or unsourced warning might have also worked.
8	Sanjiv Bhatt		Y
9	Frances Farmer		Y I like that you used {{subst:uw-npov2}}. When reverting for a reason other than vandalism, however, I would provide an explanation in the edit summary, such as something as simple as "violates WP:NPOV".
10	Volkswagen Beetle		Y
11	Ken Zampese		Y
12	Eva	Editing Test	Y
13	AIV request	This is the user that I reported to AIV about a week ago.	Y Thanks. Per our discussion, this is the only AIV request you need to show for this assignment.
14	The Cat in the Hat (film)	definitely not a horror movie	Y We actually have a user-warning series for these kinds of changes: {{subst:uw-genre1}}
15	Margot Robbie		Y

• Left some feedback, though I have to go for now. I promise I'll finish my review of your edits soon. Mz7 (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hummerrocket: I've left some feedback above. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Mz7 (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Mz7: No questions; I'm ready to move on! Hummerrocket (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • @Hummerrocket: Awesome. The next bit is just reading some information regarding how we inform editors that an IP address is shared, as well as various other tools that you can use to combat vandalism (beyond Twinkle and Special:RecentChanges). Let me know if you have questions or if you are ready to move on. Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Shared IP tagging

There are a number of IP user talk page templates which show helpful information to IP users and those wishing to warn or block them. There is a list of these templates

• {{Shared IP}} - For general shared IP addresses.
• {{ISP}} - A modified version specifically for use with ISP organizations.
• {{Shared IP edu}} - A modified version specifically for use with educational institutions.
• {{Shared IP gov}} - A modified version specifically for use with government agencies.
• {{Shared IP corp}} - A modified version specifically for use with businesses.
• {{Shared IP address (public)}} - A modified version specifically for use with public terminals such as in libraries, etc.
• {{Mobile IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with a mobile device's IP.
• {{Dynamic IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with dynamic IPs.
• {{Static IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with static IPs which may be used by more than one person.

Each of these templates take two parameters, one is the organisation to which the IP address is registered (which can be found out using the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page. The other is for the host name (which is optional) and can also be found out from the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page.

Also, given that different people use the IP address, older messages are sometimes refused so as to not confuse the current user of the IP. Generally any messages for the last one-two months are removed, collapsed, or archived. The templates available for this include:

• {{OW}} for when the messages are deleted from the talk page.
• {{Old IP warnings top}} and {{Old IP warnings bottom}} for collapsing the user warnings and leaving them on the talk page.
• {{Warning archive notice}} for when the messages are archived, and that archiving follows the usually naming sequence (that is, /Archive 1).

NOTE: All of the templates in this section are not substituted (so don't use "subst:").

@Mz7: But how would someone know if the IP is dynamic or the location of the IP? Hummerrocket (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket: I typically know if an IP address is dynamic if I notice similar behavior coming from mulitple IP addresses in the same IP range. Similarly, I typically know that an IP address is static if it has disrupted Wikipedia over a long period of time without changing its behavior. In my experience, the majority of IPv6 addresses I've encountered (the ones that look like 2001:0db8:0000:0042:0000:8a2e:0370:7334) are dynamic. It's a bit technical, and knowledge of how it works is unnecessary to fight vandalism, in my view. {{Dynamic IP}} is rarely used, so I would just avoid thinking about it.

You can "geolocate" an IP address using various tools. For example, the most recent vandal I blocked was editing from 59.167.63.207 (talk). If you go either to the IP's contributions page or their user talk page, you'll notice a box at the very bottom that contains a number of links like "[WHOIS Traceroute Geolocate (Alternate) Current blocks Global contributions]". Click the "Geolocate" link, and this will take you to a tool that will tell you the approximate geographical location of the IP address – in this case, 59.167.63.207 is in Adelaide, Australia. Speaking of these links, the "WHOIS" tool is particularly helpful for determining whether an IP address belongs to an educational institution or other organization, as the owner of the IP address will typically be listed in the WHOIS report.

I realize this is a bit complicated, so if you're confused by anything, please feel free to ask for clarification. Mz7 (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Tools

Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#Tools includes a list of tools and resources for those who want to fight vandalism with a more systematic and efficient approach.

What you have been doing so far is named the old school approach. As well as manually going through Special:RecentChanges, it includes undos, "last clean version" restores, and manually warning users.

There are a large number of tool which assist users in the fight against vandalism. They range from tools which help filter and detect vandalism to tools which will revert, warn and report users.

Twinkle

Twinkle, as you know, is very useful. It provides three types of rollback functions (vandalism, normal and AGF) as well as an easy previous version restore function (for when there are a number of different editors vandalising in a row). Other functions include a full library of speedy deletion functions, and user warnings. It also has a function to propose and nominate pages for deletion, to request page protection to report users to WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:SPI, and other administrative noticeboards.

User creation log

In my early days of fighting vandalism on Wikipedia, one of the strategies I would use to find vandalism was to patrol the account creation log. This is located at Special:Log/newusers, and it logs every time a new user account is created on Wikipedia. You'll notice that new accounts with no contributions so far will have a red "contribs" links, whereas new accounts with some contributions will have blue "contribs" links. One great way not only to find vandalism, but welcome new users to Wikipedia is to check the blue contribs links that come in.

Rollback

See rollback, this user right introduces an easy rollback button (which with one click reverts an editor's contributions). I'll let you know when I think you're ready to apply for the rollback user right.

@Mz7: Wait, isn't this already present using Twinkle, with the Rollback AGF and Rollback Vandal? What would be the purpose of obtaining this right then? I had thought rollback was that multiple users' contributions could be consecutively reverted to one last version. Hummerrocket (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket: You're correct that Twinkle will also provide you with rollback links. What these Twinkle links will do is automatically grab the contents of a prior revision of an article and save those contents in a new edit. The rollback user right (aka "software rollback"), however, is a direct feature of the software that runs Wikipedia, so instead of grabbing the entire contents of a prior revision and saving, it automatically knows precisely which changes need to be reverted. As a result, software rollback is faster and more effecient than Twinkle's "Rollback (VANDAL)" button, though both have the same functionality. Software rollback will only save a generic edit summary, however, so if you need to add an explanatory edit summary, you should use Twinkle's rollback button instead. Having access to software rollback is required in order to use Huggle. Mz7 (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

STiki

STiki is an application that you download to your computer, and it provides you with diffs which either it or User:ClueBot NG have scored on their possibility of being uncontructive, and you are given the option to revert it as vandalism, revert it assuming good faith, mark it as innocent, or abstain from making a judgment on the diff. In order to use STiki, you need one of the following: (1) the rollback permission, (2) at least 1000 article edits (in the article namespace, not talk/user pages), or (3) special permission via Wikipedia talk:STiki.

Huggle

Huggle is also an application you download to your computer which presents you diffs (orders them on the likelihood of being unconstructive edits and on the editor's recent history) from users not on its whitelist. It allows you to revert vandalism, warn and reports users in one click. The rollback permission is required to use Huggle.

@Mz7: These two tools seem really useful, but I don't really understand the difference between Huggle and STiki. All I kind of know is that Huggle is used a little more? Hummerrocket (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket: Both tools are definitely similar in functionality, and I understand why you're confused. They're both counter-vandalism applications, but they're produced by different developers. I think the primary difference is that STiki is written in Java and presents you diffs one-by-one, whereas Huggle is written in C++ and Python and presents you a list of diffs (pulled from recent changes) that you can scroll through to check. Huggle also has more buttons than STiki in general, letting you customize the kind of warnings you send to vandals, etc. You can probably explore the differences better on your own when you try each application out. Mz7 (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thank you, I'm ready to move on. Hummerrocket (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket: Sure thing. See below. Mz7 (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2017 (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?

Essentially we don't want to feed the trolls, so by doing this we don't let them get what they want, which is to make us mad. If we stay calm they don't "win." However, that doesn't mean that we don't think it exists; we still do. Hummerrocket (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Y Precisely. Whenever we get mad at or glorify trolls, we feed them. Denying them the recognition that they seek is critical to countering them. Mz7 (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?

A good faith user mostly asks in proper/polite language, and you can tell if they genuinely don't understand. When you explain to them they wouldn't harass you, unless they are still confused. However, a troll may be profane and be repetitive in nature, along with simply implying that they want to disturb you from the content they write. Hummerrocket (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Y This is generally the case, yes, but keep in mind that oftentimes a good faith user can get annoyed when their edits were reverted, so they might use language that conveys their annoyance. It's subtle, but just because someone isn't polite or completely civil does not necessarily mean that they are a vandal. The subtle difference is between someone who wants to make you annoyed, versus someone who is annoyed at you. Ultimately, I think it comes down to the kind of edits that are in question. If they're clear, obvious vandalism, unless they've come to apologize you can be sure that it's a troll. In no case, however, is it acceptable for any user on Wikipedia to personally attack or harass another editor. Mz7 (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thank you for your explanation; I know understand. Hummerrocket (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket: Apologies for the delay. Here's the next part. Mz7 (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2017 (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. If you have Twinkle installed, 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?

Pages should be semi protected when a page is being regularly vandalized by IPs or new users, especially for WP:BLP. It's especially useful when most of the edits from these users are not constructive or disruptive. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Y Mz7 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

A page should be pending changes protected when there is vandalism/disruptive editing by new or unregistered users, but at the same time constructive edits by such users can be kept. For instance, it's when a page gets both good and bad edits from these users, so PC filters the bad. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  Close, but I think you're missing one key element. One of the main things I consider when applying pending changes protection is the rate of editing on the page, i.e. how often editors are editing it. Even if at the same time a few constructive edits by new/unregistered users can be kept, if a page has a high rate of editing (e.g. several edits within an hour, or within a few minutes of each other), pending changes wouldn't be very effective, as that would likely cause a large backlog for pending changes reviewers. On articles where there is a high rate of disruptive editing, semi-protection is preferable to pending changes. On the other hand, if an article faces occasional though persistent disruptive editing, that's the case when I would consider pending changes to be the most effective. I think pending changes is an especially useful tool for low-profile BLPs; vandalism to these pages need to be corrected immediately, but without pending changes, this can't always be done. Mz7 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Fully protected pages are when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from users, especially extended confirmed users. It can resolve edit wars by protecting it a few days, but if the page is always controversial indefinite full protection is useful. Also, it is for recently deceased Wikipedians' pages. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Y Indeed, if there's a significant amount of vandalism from users where semi- or extended confirmed protection wouldn't be effective, full protection is the last resort. This is a rare occurrence, however; in the overwhelming majority of cases you'll find that semi-protection will be effective at quelling most vandalism. The most common reason for applying full protection is definitely to stop edit wars, as it forces editors to stop reverting and hopefully resolve the dispute through discussion. The vast majority of full protection cases are also temporary, lasting only a few days, at most. However, you are correct that there are a handful of articles that are indefinitely fully protected both (1) because they are controversial/prone to vandalism and (2) because we don't expect them to change from day to day with new information: e.g. Mass killings under Communist regimes. Indefinite full protection is extremely rare, and I don't expect you'll ever have to request it for an article. We also fully protect the Main Page and anything that appears on it for self-evident reasons. Mz7 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

This is useful when a bad article that has been deleted in the past is repeatedly becoming created. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Y Mz7 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

This is rare, but these pages should be semi-protected for a short time when there is severe vandalism. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Y Mz7 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

Hydropower This was successful. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Y Mz7 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?

In general pages should be speedily deleted if they don't positively contribute to Wikipedia. These pages can test/vandals, threatening, spam, etc. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Y Not just that they don’t positively contribute to Wikipedia, pages are speedily deleted only if they meet at least one criterion of a very narrow set of criteria that allow administrators to, at their discretion, bypass community discussion, which is normally required for deletion at a venue like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AfD). Mz7 (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons - they can be for any of the criteria) and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below.

@Mz7: Where can I find such pages; is there a place to see newly created pages? Hummerrocket (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket: Yes indeed. Check out Special:NewPagesFeed or its older counterpart Special:NewPages. Before you take on this assignment, I should advise you that you should typically wait to tag articles for speedy deletion if they were created by a good-faith editor. Unless it is obvious that they aren’t here to positively contribute (i.e. they are specifically here to vandalize), most new page patrollers recommend waiting, as it can turn new contributors away when they see their work tagged for deletion not more than a few minutes after creation. They may still be working on it. If a page hasn’t been edited in over an hour, however, then that’s okay. If you have time, our tutorial at Wikipedia:New pages patrol has a lot of detailed information that will help you tag pages correctly, but that is beyond the scope of this course. As always, feel free to ask if you have questions. Mz7 (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Ok, but this may take a little while. It seems infrequent when a WP:CSD page comes by. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The ECOPH Library Was clearly promotional - copied almost exactly from web page. Also not adhering WP:NPOV. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Lopiuy No content whatsoever. I waited for a while - nearly 30 minutes, which adheres to WP:CSD guidelines. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Just to let you know, I'm finished with this part.:) Hummerrocket (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Y @Hummerrocket: Good work! I've left some feedback on your responses, and I've posted the next assignment below. Please let me know if you have any questions. Mz7 (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2017 (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. 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, usernames that impersonate other people, 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 particluar 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).

DJohnson

Seems like an acceptable username; could be his/her actual name. Wouldn't interfere. Hummerrocket (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

? @Hummerrocket: This is a good response. Oftentimes it is best to leave the issue well alone if it's not causing any noticeable trouble. However, what if the user begins claiming they are Dwayne Johnson? Mz7 (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: In this case, it would be a misleading username, and therefore I would report it to WP:UAA. Hummerrocket (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Y @Hummerrocket: Indeed, if a username indicates strongly that someone is a well-known, living person, it is common practice to ask that the user send verification of their identity to WP:OTRS. We will often soft-block the user as a precaution while we wait for this verification ({{Uw-ublock-famous}}), though blocking isn't necessary all the time (again, since blocking can drive away well-meaning users). Use your best judgment. I'll post your next assignment momentarily. Mz7 (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

LMedicalCentre

Promotional username (organization), but I would probably talk to the user and tell them to change the name and why because it doesn't seem as malicious as the ones below. Hummerrocket (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Y I like your cautious attitude. Some administrators are willing to block these kinds of accounts immediately when they have already made edits to their company's article (I am also guilty of this). However, blocks can and do discourage editors from returning to edit, so if a user with a problematic username has shown an intention to edit constructively, it is far more polite to start a discussion with them rather than report/block them on the spot. On the other hand, if it is clear that they are solely here to advertise their own company, rather than make neutral, encyclopedic edits, then I would probably be less sympathetic. Use your best judgment. Mz7 (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

ColesStaff

Promotional username (company), but again I would let the user know and tell them to remake an account. Hummerrocket (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Y See feedback for the similar "LMedicalCentre" case above. Mz7 (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

WikipediaModerator

Misleading username that tries to impersonate moderator. Report to WP:UAA. Hummerrocket (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Y Mz7 (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

172.295.64.27

Misleading username that looks like IP; report immediately to WP:UAA. Hummerrocket (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Y Mz7 (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Bieberisgay

Offensive/Disruptive username (put in a way that offends both Justin Bieber fans and homosexuals) and report immediately to WP:UAA. Hummerrocket (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Y Mz7 (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Humerocket

Misleading username that is trying to impersonate me. Report to WP:UAA. Hummerrocket (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Y Mz7 (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Progress test

Congratulations, now have mastered the "basics" so we can move on. Please complete the following progress test, and I'll tell you what's next.

The following scenarios each have questions that are based on WP: VANDAL, WP:3RR, WP: REVERT, WP: BLOCK, WP: GAIV, WP: WARN, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, and WP:UN. Good Luck!

(I realize this is a lot. Feel free to take your time on it. It's an open-book test.)

Scenario 1

You encounter an IP vandalising Justin Bieber by adding in statements that he is gay.

• Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?
  • I would consider this to be vandalism because that is an unsourced fact and it is clear the user is vandalizing Wikipedia. Hummerrocket (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Y Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?
  • This is breaching WP:BLP, which is strict on adding neutral and verifiable content for bios. Hummerrocket (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Y Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?
  • An appropriate warning would be by default {{uw-biog1}} but if the vandalism is more severe I would put a level 2. Hummerrocket (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Y In this context, however, it's almost definitely vandalism, so I would use {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} or {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}. Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• The user has now added offensive words to the article 3 times. You have reverted three times already, can you be blocked for violating the three-revert rule in this case?
  • I cannot be blocked because reverting vandalism is an exemption of the three-revert rule as highlighted by WP:3RRBLP. Hummerrocket (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Y Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
  • For Twinkle I would click "Vandalism after final (level 4 or 4im) warning given" and link Justin Bieber's article. Hummerrocket (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Y Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Scenario 2

You see a new account called "Hi999" that has added random letters to one article.

• Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?
  • This is considered a test edit, which is in between, because the user could easily be seeing if they can edit Wikipedia. I wouldn't go far to say this is blatant vandalism. Hummerrocket (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Y Excellent. Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?
  • {{uw-test1}} is a good warning template, as it would be considered a beginning test edit. Hummerrocket (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Y Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• The user now has a level 3 warning on their talk page. They make a vandal edit. Would it be appropriate to report this user to AIV? Why or why not?
  • It would be appropriate to report to AIV, especially if vandalism is the only things they have done because they are not here to help Wikipedia, only vandalize. In the past I didn't have to give a level 4 to report. Hummerrocket (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • OK. If it is blatant that a user is only here to vandalize, administrators do tend to block, sometimes even without warning. However, keep in mind that many vandals do stop after a few warnings and places like AIV can get backlogged, so if you choose to report a user before level 4, I would limit myself only to vandals you believe have a high chance of vandalizing again (e.g. the next occurrence is imminent). Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indefinitely?
  • It can easily be blocked indefinitely if no good contributions are made, as this user is not here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Hummerrocket (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Y Yes, vandalism-only accounts are often blocked indefinitely, even without prior blocks. Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
  • I would use the box of a vandalism-only account. Hummerrocket (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Y Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Scenario 3

You see a new account called "LaptopsInc" which has created a new page called "Laptops Inc" (which only contains the words "Laptops Inc" and a few lines of text copied from the company's website). The user also added "www.laptopsinc.com" on the Laptop article. You research Laptops Inc on Google and find that is a small company.

• Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option would you use?
  • I would revert the edit using the rollback feature of Twinkle. Hummerrocket (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Y Mz7 (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• If you do revert which warning template would you use?
  • I would give the {{uw-advert2}} as this is obviously not good faith. Hummerrocket (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    • OK. {{subst:uw-spam1}} also works. Don't be afraid to be liberal with level 1 warnings. Mz7 (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?
  • I would tag the article with the tag of WP:G11 and probably WP:G12 as well. Hummerrocket (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Y Mz7 (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?
  • I would put a {{uw-username}} and describe the reason as a promotional username. Hummerrocket (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Y I won't hold this against you, but if a username is blatantly against policy and if the account has already made spam edits, typically you are free to report the username right away to WP:UAA without having to leave a warning. Use your best judgment. Mz7 (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?
  • If the user doesn't change the name I would report it for being a promotional username. Hummerrocket (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Y Mz7 (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Results

Your Score: 100%.

@Hummerrocket: Well done! Be sure to read some of my comments above, however. Mz7 (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Rollback

Congratulations now for the next step. The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced vandalism fighters to revert vandalism with the click of one button. Please read WP:Rollback.

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

Rollback should be used when reverting obvious vandalism that doesn't need an edit summary, or perhaps your own edits that you made that are mistakes. However, rollback may not be used to revert good faith edits that you disagree with, or in general any reverts that need an edit summary. Hummerrocket (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: I'm finished with this part. Hummerrocket (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Y @Hummerrocket: Sorry for the delay. Your answer is right. If an explanation is expected, use Twinkle's rollback or the undo button instead, since those let you save a custom edit summary. If you would like the rollback right, feel free to request it at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. As we covered earlier, the right gives you access to special tools like Huggle that let you patrol recent changes faster. The next phase of this course is a "monitoring period", which I explain below. Mz7 (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Monitoring period

Congratulations! You have completed the first section of the anti-vandalism course, well done. Now that we've been through everything that you need to know as a vandal patroller, you will be given a 7-day monitoring period. During this time, you are free to revert vandalism (and edit Wikipedia) as you normally do; I will monitor your progress in anti-vandalism. If there are any issues, I will raise them with you and if you have any problems, you are free to ask me. After seven days, if I am satisfied with your progress, you will take the final test; passing this will mean you graduate from the CVUA. Good luck!

If you have any problems or trouble along the way please leave a message on my talk page. If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look.

Y Hi Hummerrocket. Today marks the end of the monitoring period. I took a look through your work this past week, and I'm seeing mostly good things! With Huggle, it's easy to make many hundreds of edits within a relatively short period of time – as other editors have reminded you on your talk page, I would try to slow down when using Huggle so as to avoid making mistakes like reverting the wrong edit. Remember, other editors are typically using Huggle at the same time you are, so slowing down won't have a huge effect on how fast vandalism will get reverted on average – another Huggle user will typically revert the edit in the place of you. (You've probably already happened upon cases where someone else beat you to a revert! ) Are you ready to take the "final exam"? Mz7 (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Yes, I am ready! Thank you for the suggestions too! Hummerrocket (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Final Exam

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.

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (25%)

For each of these examples, please state whether you would call the edit(s) described as vandalism or good faith edit, a reason for that, and how you would deal with the situation (ensuring you answer the questions where applicable).

1. A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article. What would you do if it was their first warning? What about after that.

   I would consider this to be a test edit, and give them that warning, which is in between good faith and vandalism. After that, though, I would give level 2, 3, etc. warnings.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

2. A user adds their signature to an article after one being given a {{Uw-articlesig}} warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?

   Next time I would leave a vandalism 2 message, and then increase the level each time until reporting the user.

   Y {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} is okay, but don't be shy about writing a message in your own words too if you feel that one of the templates don't fit exactly what you want to say. Mz7 (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

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 put a WP:NPOV message, as they provide an opinion, and then later carry on with vandalism 2, 3, etc.

    OK. Depends on the article, of course. If the article is literally about a John Smith, I suppose an NPOV warning would be acceptable. However, we often see this kind of "John Smith is the best" insertions on articles that never mention a John Smith. If I were to guess, this is probably done by kids who want to add their own names to articles as a juvenile form of vandalism. In these cases, the standard {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} would be my go-to warning, rather than NPOV. Mz7 (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

4. A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?

   The first time, I could consider it to be a test edit, as they are literally and give an editing test warning.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

5. A user removes sources 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?

   I would assume good faith, revert the edit with an edit summary. If they do this again and they are a positive contributing user, I would revert again and talk to them about it in a discussion, as to not violate the 3 revert rule. However, if the user is disruptive and repeats, then I would put the vandalism warnings by level, accompanied by an explanation and eventually report.

   N It's good that you are assuming good faith to start and keeping the three-revert rule in mind. However, in cases where an editor is removing sourced information with an explanation that the content is wrong, the first thing you should do is check the sources and evaluate whether the editor's claim has any merit. Does the information cite sufficiently reliable sources? Do the reliable sources directly support the information in the article? Does the material relate to living persons? Rather than reverting on the first sight, which is what your answer here implies, I would train yourself to follow this line of thinking before reverting.

   After you've checked the information against the sources and found it to be correct, that's when you would be justified in reverting. To preempt an edit war, I would also recommend starting a discussion on a talk page right away, rather than waiting for a second revert. If they continue to make the same unsubstantiated claims, an administrator is more likely to take action for disruptive editing if they see evidence of attempted discussion with the user. Mz7 (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

   P.S. There was a typo in the question. It should have read sourced information, not "sources information". I apologize if this caused confusion for you.

Part 2 (15%)

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}} (for blanking pages)

   Y Mz7 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

2. A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.

   {{Uw-attempt2}}

   Y Mz7 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

3. A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.

   {{uw-efsummary}}

   Y Mz7 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

4. A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.

   I'd go straight to a {{Uw-vandalism2}} and doesn't deserve a soft warning.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

5. A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.

   {{Uw-delete1}}

   Y You're 100% correct, of course, regarding the template. Just as a bit of side advice: the key is "without a reason". Oftentimes, I like to give the benefit of the doubt in removal-of-content cases. If the content is unsourced to begin with, and especially if the content is about a living person, as it would be for David Newhan, I sometimes let the edit slide or leave it for a user who is more experienced with the subject to do the revert. As Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, once wrote: "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" (source). Mz7 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

   {{Uw-test1}}

   Y Mz7 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

7. A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.

   {{Uw-npov1}}

    OK. It depends whether there's a Tim being discussed in the article. As I wrote in a similar case in part 1, generally these kinds of edits are vandalism or test edits, rather than NPOV violations. Use your best judgment. Mz7 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

8. A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.

   {{Uw-biog1}}

   Y Mz7 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

9. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.

   {{Uw-delete4im}} (first at least warn the user before reporting, unless they have only vandalized; then I would report)

   Y Mz7 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

10. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.

    I would actually report this to WP:AIV

    Y Mz7 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

11. 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).

    If this user has historically vandalized, then I would put a {{Uw-vandalism4im}} tag.

    Y Nowadays we see this kind of thing less frequently due to filter 803, which prevents non-autoconfirmed users from editing other users' user pages. Mz7 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

12. A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.

    {{Uw-image1}}

    Y {{subst:uw-test1}} also works. Mz7 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Part 3 (10%)

What CSD tag you would put on the following articles (The content below is the article's content).

1. Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!

   WP:G11, promotion

   Y Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

   I would AGF and consider it a WP:G2

   {{cross}} It's probably not a test page. First do a Google search for "Josh Marcus" or "Josh Marcus London" to see if we're not missing anything obvious. If you cannot discern exactly who the subject is, WP:A1 is a valid criterion. WP:A7 also works, since the article doesn't credibly explain why the subject is important. Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

   P.S. If you are ever interested in becoming an administrator in the future, WP:RFA participants love to ask these kinds of CSD-related questions who express an interest in working in speedy deletion. Typically in those questions, you are expected to do a Google search and find an obvious meaning for a "Josh Marcus" to admin candidates. In this case, I don't really see an obvious meaning for Josh Marcus (I actually didn't write these questions), but a Google search is typically the first step.

   Y Actually, upon reflection, I can see the argument for it being a test page. I'll give you full credit for this question, but keep in mind the advice of doing a Google search before tagging, just in case we don't miss anything obvious. Mz7 (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

3. Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !

   WP:A7, as not a recognized person.

   Y WP:A1 also works, since we don't have enough context to discern who the subject is. Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

4. A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.

   WP:A11, as this is clearly made up.

   Y {{db-hoax}} (G3) also works. Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

5. Fuck Wiki!

   WP:G3, obvious vandalism.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

What would you do in the following circumstance:

• A user blanks a page they very recently created.
  • Then this would be considered WP:G7, so I'd request speedy deletion per guidelines.
    • Y Correct as long as there are no significant contributions from other editors. Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
  • Warn the user with {{Uw-speedy1}} the first time, and then increase the level the next times.
    •   This is an interesting case that I personally haven't stumbled across (I actually didn't write these questions). You are correct that normally, it is inappropriate for an editor to remove a speedy deletion tag from an article that they themselves created – {{uw-speedy1}} is a good templated warning message for this informing them of this. However, WP:G7 is deliberately built around a case where the author of an article wants the article deleted; thus, if they remove the tag from their own article, we might take that as them not wanting the article deleted. I wouldn't use {{uw-speedy1}} in this case; rather, I would revert the article back to its unblanked state (unless the page met another one of the criteria for speedy deletion), then write out a custom message on their talk page asking exactly what it is they want to do with this article. Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Part 4 (10%)

Are the following new (logged in) usernames violations of the username policy? Describe why or why not and what you would do about it (if they are a breach).

1. TheMainStreetBand

   Promotional username; but I'd talk to the user first instead of just reporting to WP:UAA

   Y Mz7 (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

2. Poopbubbles

   Offensive/disruptive username, report at once to WP:UAA.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

3. Brian's Bot

   Misleading username that impersonates bot, report to WP:UAA.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

   This one is tricky, but I'd wait until the user disrupts to call it a confusing/disruptive user.

   Y Generally, in all but the most egregious violations you should wait until the user edits before reporting. Mz7 (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

5. Bobsysop

   Misleading name that impersonates administrator, report.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

6. 12:12, 23 June 2012

   Misleading username that looks like clock on wikipedia, report.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

7. PMiller

   Would not report, as it can be their true name.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

8. OfficialJustinBieber

   Misleading username, report immediately to WP:UAA

   Y Mz7 (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Part 5 (10%)

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)?

   It would not be considered an edit war, because reverting vandalism is a specific exception to the rules of edit warring.

   Y WP:3RRNO grants an exception to obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language. In cases of subtle vandalism, I would be more careful, as other editors might think you're engaged in a content dispute and accuse you of edit warring. Mz7 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

2. Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?

   Report them to WP:AIV using Twinkle.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

   Complex and long term abuse should be reported to WP:LONG. In general WP:ANI also works.

   Y WP:ANI is probably the go-to spot for more complicated cases of abuse, such as a user with a positive history of contributions suddenly degenerating into vandalism (this is often indicative of a compromised account). Mz7 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

4. Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?

   Report them to WP:UAA using Twinkle.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

5. Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?

   Report to WP:ANI, but you actually have to write yourself the explanation, not using Twinkle.

   Y   Don't forget that you have to notify any user you start an ANI thread about that the discussion is taking place. {{subst:ANI-notice}} works for this purpose, and it can also be sent via Twinkle using the Talkback ("TB") option, selecting "Noticeboard notification" from the dropdown menu. With respect to personal attacks, oftentimes they are done in the heat of the moment in a contentious discussion, so unless it is egregious, I would make sure you attempt to discuss the issue with the editor calmly before escalating to ANI. ANI can get pretty drama-heavy. Mz7 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

6. Where and how should an edit war be reported?

   WP:AN3, using the Twinkle feature.

   Y I'm not sure whether Twinkle does this automatically, but don't forget that, like ANI, you are required to notify involved editors that a AN3 discussion is taking place about them. {{subst:An3-notice}} is here for this and can be sent via Twinkle using the ("TB") option if Twinkle doesn't do it automatically. Mz7 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

7. Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?

   WP:BLPN, where you need to provide a manual explanation.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Part 6 - Theory in practice (30%)

1. Find and revert three instances of vandalism (by different editors on different pages), and appropriately warn the editor. Please give the diffs the warning below.

1. Soul Surfer (film)
2. Walla Walla County, Washington
3. Herman Hoeksema

Y Clear vandalism, all first-instance, use of {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}. Good work, no concerns. Mz7 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

2. Find and revert two good faith edits, and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.

1. IF Fram Larvik

     Assuming good faith is probably the best step, but a Google search doesn't verify any connection between an "Ola "Udel" Skjefrås Alsaker" and IF Fram Larvik. Consider using {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} or {{subst:uw-error1}} in a case like case. Mz7 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

2. Robbie Savage

     Welcoming is okay, but again, a more straightforward warning probably would have been {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} or {{subst:uw-error1}}. Mz7 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

3. Correctly report two users (either AIV or ANI). Give the diffs of your report below.

1. Duxment
2. Awesomecaptain100

 OK. These users were eventually blocked, but I have to say that generally I look for vandalism past a fourth warning before blocking, unless the vandalism is egregious or it's obvious that they won't turn to positive contributions. Here, this was likely the case. Mz7 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

4. Correctly request the protection of two articles; post the diffs of your requests below.

1. Guy Fieri

   Y Mz7 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

2. Arabic

   Y {{pp-dispute}} is typically used in cases where there is a specific editing dispute that's been causing edit warring on an article. For general disruptive editing, simply using {{pp-protected}} is fine. Mz7 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

5. Correctly nominate one articles for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nominations below.

1. Pushpa Gujral Science City - was obvious advertising and copyright infringement.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

6. Correctly report one username as a breache of policy.

1. Spurgeons college

   Y Mz7 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: I'm finished. Hummerrocket (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Good work, I'm in the process of finalizing the scoring. In the meantime, read through my feedback and let me know if you have any questions. Next step: graduation! Mz7 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Final score

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage
1	5	4	25%	20%
2	12	12	15%	15%
3	7	7	10%	10%
4	8	8	10%	10%
5	7	7	10%	10%
6	18	18	30%	30%
TOTAL	57	56	100	95%

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 95% and no major issues came up during your 5 day monitoring period; well done.

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

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.

It's been a pleasure to work with you these past few weeks! I'm fairly new to this CVUA thing, and I hope you've gained at least something from my ramblings on this page. Counter-vandalism is an important behind-the-scenes contribution to Wikipedia, and throughout the course I appreciated your interest towards it. Best of luck! Mz7 (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, thank you so much! It was a real pleasure to learn from you, and I really learned a lot from this course. I hope that we remain in touch on Wikipedia in the future and good lucking teaching fellow students!

---

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Callanecc, who has graciously published his training methods on-wiki. As I thought his methods were of higher quality than anything I could achieve on myself, I used his materials for your training, with a few minor tweaks. The originals can be found at User:Callanecc/CVUA/Tasks. Mz7 (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)