User:Pahunkat/CVUA/Cheerful Squirrel

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

Make sure you read through 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.

Curriculum

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

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. Pahunkat (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The start

Gadgets

Twinkle

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

Redwarn

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

Huggle

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

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

Finding the vandals

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

---

Hello Cheerful Squirrel - the above is just some installation of gadgets to speed things up and automate processes (in particular warning other users, which I see you currently do manually). Twinkle is a staple gadget for this type of work and has multiple other functions that you will hopefully find useful, RedWarn is also useful though not necessary. No policy for now, you'll get enough of that later on. Once you've installed the gadgets, try them out and then ping me below when you've finished or if you encounter any problems. Pahunkat (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Thank you! I installed Twinkle and Redwarn. The only issue is that Twinkle takes a few seconds to reload the page after a warning, whereas Redwarn is fairly instant. Any way to reconfigure Twinkle, or is that just how it is? Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Cheerful Squirrel, I think that there's any way to stop that (I think it's built in) but it's worth having a look around Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences or asking at the teahouse/village pump (technical) if it really bothers you. In the meantime, I'll put the next section below given that Twinkle and RW are functional. Let me know if you have any further questions regarding Twinkle or RW. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism

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

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

A new user makes an edit that needs to be reverted. On which circumstances would you AGF: Edits contrary to the manual of style, replacing the name of a BLP with "Wikipedia is stupid", edits that don't adhere to a neutral point of view, addition of unsourced (not defamatory) content, adding swear words to the text of an article. Include reasons

• Edits contrary to the manual of style: Assume good faith, give the user specific feedback and link to the manual
• replacing the name of a BLP with "Wikipedia is stupid": this is evidence of vandalism, no need to AGF, but should be nice and message to the user should imply an assumption of good faith if it's the first instance
• edits that don't adhere to a neutral point of view: Assume good faith, explain the WP:NPOV policy
• Addition of unsourced (not defamatory) content: Assume good faith, explain the policy
• Adding swear words: this is evidence of bad faith, no need to AGF. Again, best to be nice if it's a first warning.

Y We'll cover warnings later on, but your assessment of AGF is spot on here.

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

A good faith edit has the intention of improving Wikipedia. A vandalism edit has the effect of removing existing material, damaging existing material, or adding material that could not conceivably serve a constructive purpose even if the user were oblivious to Wikipedia policies. Some measure of empathy is sometimes needed to tell the difference, but vandalism typically cannot conceivably serve a constructive purpose.

Y - Mostly correct, but I'd say removing content to an extent - removing one or two words may just be a test edit, but attempting to blank the page and replacing it with a string of random letters I would consider vandalism.

 Question: - You've said that some measure of empathy is needed when attempting to tell whether an edit is made in good faith or is vandalism, but can you give examples of any pointers that you would look for?

What I try to do is to put myself in the other person's shoes and see if there's a way I could conceivably have done what they did with a constructive intent. I first try to look at the edit summary and see how well that matches with what they do. If the edit summary is a lie, I would say that's strong evidence of bad faith - ex. inserting controversial unsourced content with the edit summary "fixed typo". If the edit summary aligns with what they are could have been trying to do, then AGF. If there's no edit summary, I try to imagine that if I had no understanding of Wikipedia culture and rules and formatting syntax at all, if I might have made the same edit. If they seem to be trying to add information that the user believes to be true, then AGF even if it's a policy violation. If they've been warned about an issue a few times and they aren't responding to or acknowledging the warning, and continuing the behavior, that's evidence of bad faith. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice explanation! Looking at the edit summary is one indicator that you might use to determine if an edit was made in good or bad faith - I can see what you mean by using empathy. Further pointers that can help in determine if an edit was made in good or bad faith include the username of the account ("[article name] sucks" or usernames with profanity are highly unlikely to be here to contribute constructively, and may even warrant a report to WP:UAA - we'll cover UPOL later on), previous edits/warnings that the user has made/received, and the edit filter log of the user (blatant vandalism is regularly stopped by edit filters, so vandals that get past the filters won't have as blatant edits).

Please explain why it is important to not to WP:BITE newcomers whose edits may have been made in good faith

If newcomers stick around, then they may later gain experience and make constructive contributions! The project will die over time if it's not able to retain new users who can be persuaded to edit constructively.

Y Well phrased.

You come across an edit, and you find yourself unsure as to whether it was made in good or bad faith. In cases like these do you treat the edit as made in good faith or bad faith, and why?

In this situation, I usually either ask the user for clarification directly or ask for a second opinion from another user.

N - Remember, it's Assume good faith. Unless there's obvious evidence to suggest the contrary, assume that the user is here to help improve the encyclopedia.

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

Type	Diff	Trainer's comment
Good-faith edit	[1]	Y Non-notable entry but nothing to suggest bad intentions. A minor note: you didn't say the reason for the revert in your edit summary. With RW you can leave specific edit summaries when reverting, so do try it out. The reason it's important to do so is that this is a mobile IP and may not see their talk page, see WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU for more details.
Good-faith edit	[2]	Y Edit added information that was ambiguous and unsourced, but once again no visible malice
Good-faith edit	[3]	Y Just formatting mistakes
Vandalism	[4]	Y Clearly was not intended to improve the encyclopedia.
Vandalism	[5]	Y Such topic areas are highly controversial (WP:BLP and some Arbcom rulings in effect if I remember correctly), but I agree with your revert in this instance.
Vandalism	[6]	Y Note the IP added the entry here, but either way clearly WP:NOTHERE.

A note about Redwarn and Twinkle

Use either the green, blue, or red "rollback" links, since they save a more relevant edit summary

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

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

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

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

---

The section above is on the policy WP:AGF - please read through the instructions and complete the tasks. When you're finished or if you encounter any problems, please ping me below. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Thank you very much! I read through the material and completed the questions. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Cheerful Squirrel, I have marked the above - could you please look at the feedback and answer the one question that I've written? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: First of all, I want to express my appreciation for all the time and effort you put into giving detailed feedback. It's very generous of you and I'm grateful. As requested, I answered your question above. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cheerful Squirrel, I'm happy to help! I've responded to your answer - do take a look at the response. In the meantime, I'll add the next section below. Pahunkat (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

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

Please answer the following questions

Why do we warn users?

We hope that users can be persuaded to comply with Wikipedia's policies and make constructive contributions! If we blocked everybody on a first transgression, then we could be scaring away a lot of people who could help the project. Moreover, a lot of people make mistakes in good faith and don't mean to harm. In fact, we assume so! :)

Y They also help good-faith users to learn how to contribute effectively and comply with policy.

When would a 4im (only) warning be appropriate?

If a transgression is clearly in bad faith and has the potential to do significant harm to the project or to the reputation of a living person, we may want to expedite the path to a potential block if giving them 5 free passes could significantly disrupt the project

Y I'd be careful with phrases like "free passes" when talking about warnings as it makes them sound like a game, but otherwise you have the idea of when to give a 4im. Excessive and/or constant disruption will warrant a 4im.

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!)

WP:WARN instructs us to subst the template. So, yes.

Y

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

Report the user to WP:AIV.

Y

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

#	Diff of your revert, and warning if applicable.	Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff	Trainer's Comment
1	[7][8]	User introduced formatting error, and claimed the subject was dead without a source. I reverted and warned. I searched but couldn't find any evidence that she was deceased.	Y Looks like the subject actually died per recent developments, but I'm considering this as a good revert + warning because no source was provided by the IP, additionally you say that you did a search and there was no evidence she was deceased at that time.
2	[9][10]	Reverted personal attack on BLP. I didn't leave an edit summary for my revert since this seemed like straightforward vandalism.	Y Maybe this is a case of a NPOV violation as opposed to someone attempting to disrupt the encyclopedia - note that they seem to be expressing an opinion. Good revert and warning though.
3	[11][12]	Revert crude defamatory comment	Y Just a vandal, you only have to see their contribution history to tell that they aren't here to contribute constructively. uw-vandalism3 could have also been used as a warning here
4	[13][14]	I clicked the wrong button on Redwarn, so the edit summary for the revert is no good. I wanted to ask your feedback on whether the warning level I gave was appropriate. I saw another editor just straight to 4-IM for this type of vandalism, so I did the same.	Y I can see the reason for the revert, and I've said before that when editing such topics in general you should be careful. In this case, I don't really think a 4im was appropriate here - it's their first edit, and there isn't a rush of IPs and accounts staging constant disruption at the time (only one disruptive edit in the previous 24h). Maximum warning I'd give would be a level 2, maybe even a written tp message if I had time. Note that this is a mobile IP so they probably wouldn't have seen messages on their tp, making edit summaries when reverting all the more important - just be careful when reverting and take your time, we all make mistakes.
5	[15][16]	This one was straightforward.	Y Agreed.
6	[17][18]	Should have used the unexplained content removal summary. I find it's hard to choose good edit summaries for reverts since if I don't act quickly someone else will revert. Is that valid?	Question: Not seeing how this is unexplained removal of content, did you mean something else? Note that you should take as much time as you need when doing counter-vandalism work - if someone else reverts before you, it doesn't matter as long as the edit gets reverted.
7	[19][20]	Unexplained content removal. Got the edit summary right this time.	Y Good revert and warning.
8	[21][22]	This user already got their fourth warning and was already reported to ANV. I gave them another fourth warning.	Y, though once they are reported at AIV there's no need to give them more warnings - just revert.
9	[23][24]	Reverted a clearly false statistic	The original statistic has been unsourced since 2017, which doesn't help. However, I agree that 200 million is highly unlikely to be true - just make sure that you aren't reverting to another false statistic if possible. RedWarn has an option to leave an edit summary of "likely factual errors" for cases such as this one.
10	[25][26]	An issue I keep running into with RedWarn is that I give the user a level 1 warning, then I see they've already been warned, so I need to revert my warning and rewarn at the proper level. Any way around this?	RedWarn should automatically detect the next warning level, is that not the case for you?

---

The above section is on warning users and reporting them to administrators if necessary. A common misconception here is that you should only warn users when their edits are made in bad faith - it's perfectly acceptable to drop a template to a user who has made edits in good faith which needed to be reverted, the level 1 warning of each series is generally worded "nicely"/"assumes good faith" (look through the templates to see what I mean). Non-templated messages can also be used in such instances. Whilst this process is largely automated by Twinkle and RedWarn, it's useful to familiarize yourself with some of the basic templates such as uw-vandalism(1/2/3/4/4im), uw-npov, etc... Pahunkat (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Done! Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply Cheerful Squirrel, I didn't get your ping - just to let you know that I've seen it and will mark this within the day. Pahunkat (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Cheerful Squirrel, once again apologies for my lateness in marking these. I've had a look and added some comments - could you have a look at these please? Some of the comments might require you to reply, given the size of the table it would probably be best if you replied to below instead of in the table. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: No worries, and thank you very much! Because the title of the article is Cuba Gooding, I assume that changing the name in the table to "Morocco Gooding" is not constructive. And yes, I figured out the RedWarn issue. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

With regards to there isn't a rush of IPs and accounts staging constant disruption at the time, how do we keep tabs on that? Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I should mention that three different users just reprimanded me on my talk page for improper reverts. I don't think I'm going to be doing any further CVU stuff outside of your instructions until I complete this course. It looks like the main issue is that if I head read people's edit summary more carefully, I would have been able to avoid the mistake. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Cheerful Squirrel, I'd say that it will be obvious when there's constant disruption - for example, you see multiple new accounts or IP addresses repeatedly attempting to make the same edit to an article in a very short amount of time. In this instance, it's clear that the editing is coordinated and just give 4im warnings to the new users or IPs that pop up. Another case may be a vandal who has received no warnings so far but has reverted editors who have reverted their vandalism multiple times in a short space of time - you should also give a 4im in this instance. Pahunkat (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your reverts, I encourage you to continue patrolling recent changes but please take your time and leave edits that you're not certain about. Don't revert in areas that you've recused yourself from, for obvious reasons. As you get more experience, it will become clearer what to do in such situations. I'm not sure how SWviewer works, but if it's an external program like Huggle then I suggest starting off patrolling recent changes using the built-in website feed - it's easier to see what's going on, especially if I compare it to a program like Huggle. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Will do! Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Is there any more to do for the academy? Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Cheerful Squirrel, please see below. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Page protection, and an introduction to speedy deletion

Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only an administrator can protect or delete pages; however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion or request protection. You can use the RedWarn menu (on the right-hand side, the RPP option) to request page protection. Twinkle can be used to request speedy deletion (the TW menu next to the search bar on top, the CSD option) and also request page protection (the RPP option on the menu).

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

If there is persistent disruptive editing on that page and semi-protection is sufficient to stop it, and maintaining contributions from new/anonymous users isn't a high priority.

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

If there is persistent disruptive editing on that page and pending changes protection is sufficient to stop it, and maintaining contributions from new/anonymous users is a high priority.

 Question: How do you determine if maintaining contributions from non-AC users is a high priority or not (i.e. the difference between applying pending changes and semi protection)?

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

If there is persistent disruptive editing on that page and neither semi-protection nor extended protection is sufficient to stop it.

Y

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

If there's a consensus through relevant processes to delete the page but people keep recreating it anyway.

Y Doesn't need to be consensus (pages that are repeatedly speedy deleted may be salted), just if a page is repeatedly recreated

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

According to the protection policies, article talk pages can be temporarily semi-protected if necessary in the most severe cases of vandalism. User talk pages are sometimes (semi) protected in cases of very severe vandalism as well. The user talk pages of blocked users can be protected in cases of severe abuse.

 Question: How long do we protect talk pages if it is necessary?

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).

I did this not too long ago under my previous account [27]. Here was the response [28].

Y You should almost never request indefinite protection, but a temporary semi was needed here.

---

@Pahunkat: Thank you very much! Here are my responses. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Cheerful Squirrel, thanks for completing the section - please see my comments above. Please respond to the questions and ping me when done. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Article talk pages are protected for "a limited duration" according to the policy. User talk pages of blocked users when protected, are protected only for a limited time not to exceed the length of the block. The policy doesn't specify how long to protect user talk pages of non-blocked users, but I would assume this would be for a limited duration as well. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Cheerful Squirrel, Y - we don't protect article talk pages for longer than necessary, and the protection of talk pages themselves is exceptionally rare. How about the other question on PC/Semi? Pahunkat (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: According to the article, semi-protection should be used instead of pending changes protection for articles with a high edit rate. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Cheerful Squirrel, I'd say it's more to do with how constructive the edits by non-ac users and IPs are. For example, you would want to semi protect an article where every single edit by IPs/non-ac users are vandalism, however if there are constructive contributions coming from other IPs and non-ac users then consider pending changes protection. Sorry for the delay on this, and please see below for the next section, where we go briefly into the topic of speedy deletion. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

What do the letter prefixed to each criteria mean? In previous iterations I've mostly skipped this question, but we're not going to do much tagging so explaining the prefixes and all of the G-criteria will do

• G1, patent non-sense: the content doesn't have semantic value
• G2, test pages: pages that appear to be created to test Wikipedia page creation, with the exception of sandboxes
• G3, pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes: for pure vandalism pages and blatant misinformation
• G4, recreation of a page that was deleted per a discussion: recreating a page for which there was consensus to delete through relevant processes
• G5, creations by banned of blocked users: page creations by users in violations of sanctions they are under (if the pages don't have substantial contributions by non-sanctioned users)
• G6, technical deletions: uncontroversial maintenance like helping with page moves
• G7, author requests: if there's only one substantial contributor and they have a reasonable request for deleting their page
• G8, pages dependent on a non-existent page: such as talk pages for deleted articles, redirects to non-existent pages, children pages with no parent, etc
• G9, office actions: action by WMF
• G10: attack pages, that only exist to defame someone
• G11: pages that are essentially advertisements, cannot easily be put into compliance through reworking
• G12: copyright infringement
• G13: drafts of articles that haven't been edited for at least 6 months
• G14: disambiguation pages that aren't needed since they don't disambiguate many things

Y You've explained all the G- criteria well  Question: What do the prefixes A-, F-, G- and U- stand do?

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

Speedy deletion examples

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

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.

Tag with {Db-g10} (I'm only going to add one set of { } to denote two sets). Y Consider if the username is appropriate as well, we'll cover that area later on

Yes, would report the username to UAA.

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.

Tag with {Db-g11} Y

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 5,250 subscribers on YouTube.

Tag with {Db-a7}. Y

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.

(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.)

Tag with {Db-a7}. Being a roadie even for a notable band like The Nice doesn't make make a subject notable. Lemmy is considered notable because he did notable things after being a roadie. Content admits that subject isn't well-known, and Wikipedia inclusion is based on what reliable sources say is important, not what its editors say is important.

 Question: The subject indeed isn't notable, but can this be turned into a redirect

Okay! Let's redirect to The Nice. Y

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?

Nope. Still tag for speedy deletion, Wikipedia content needs to be GFDL and can't be copied from other websites without justification.

 Question: Which criteria would you use?

Using G12. Y

Scenario 6

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

If it's the same content as on a foreign language Wikipedia tag with {Db-a2}. Otherwise tag with {Not English}. Y

Scenario 7

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

Tag with {Db-g7}. Y Make sure they really have abandoned it by waiting 10-15 minutes before tagging

Scenario 8

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

Jlakjrelekajroi3j192809jowejfldjoifu328ur3pieisgreat

How would this scenario be different if the page was created in draftspace? How about in article space?

Regardless of whether this page were created in user space, draft space, or article space, tag with {Db-g1}.

Y Would agree with your conclusion for draft and article space, but not for userspace (think user sandboxes, which are permitted to contain such content)

---

@Pahunkat: Thank you very much! and no problem. Here are my responses.

Hello Cheerful Squirrel, thank you for completing that section. Please see my feedback above and respond accordingly. Caught the changes on my watchlist, but remember that pings don't work unless you add a signature. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Thanks for the tip! I answered your questions. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cheerful Squirrel, that was fast! I've marked the two that you've answered - there's one more on the first question. In the meantime, I've added the next section below on revdel and oversight. It's relatively short, ping me when you're done or if you have a question. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Revision Deletion and Oversight

Please read WP:REVDEL and WP:OVERSIGHT.

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

If you believe an edit needs to be revision deleted, how would you request that?

If it's a blatant copyright violation, use {Copyvio-revdel}. Otherwise, leave a message to an administrator in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests via email or talk page (email for more sensitive things).

Y, but you should email such requests in order to not draw undue attention to the diffs

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

Either use Special:EmailUser/Oversight, email oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org, or #wikipedia-en-revdel/#wikimedia-stewards on Libera chat.

Y for the first two, I'm not quite sure what the situation is regarding IRC but I think that stewards rarely oversight here on enwiki (we have our own set of oversighters) and en-revdel is mainly used for revdel (revdel can be used prior to oversighting if a diff needs to be hidden quickly).

---

@Pahunkat: Thank you! I think I got it. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cheerful Squirrel, I've marked that - did you get a chance to respond to the unanswered question in the previous section? Best, Pahunkat (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: I think so! Assuming you mean the first question, I would report the username to WP:UAA. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Cheerful Squirrel, it was a bit further up - What do the prefixes A-, F-, G- and U- stand for? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Sorry! The A- prefixes are CSD for articles, the F- ones are for files, the U- are for userspage pages, and G- criteria can apply to any page. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC) Y

Usernames

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

• Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia (words like admin, sysop, Wikimedia Foundation, etc), usernames that impersonate other people (either famous people, or other Wikipedians' usernames), or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
• Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.
• Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
• Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.

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

Need to know if this is actually Bill Gates. Would try to talk to the user first if there isn't any evidence in their userpage or after asking them, report it otherwise.

N Could stand for something like Bob Gates, and real names are allowed. Don't take any action unless the user is editing microsoft-related articles

Pakunhat

Misleading since can be confused with you :). Report to UAA.

Y, this one has been used to impersonate me before

J0E B1DEN

Would presume this is not Joe Biden due to the unprofessional use of 0 and 1 and report to UAA as a violation.

Y, though there's no need to evaluate whether this is Joe Biden or not - just report to UAA, and they'll be blocked until they can verify their identity or change username

JoeAtBurgerKing

No issue. Y

JoeTheSysop

Talk with user as it could be good faith (they could be a sysop somewhere else). But it's misleading and would report if they won't change it.

Y Misleading. In previous iterations of this course I've told students to check if they are a sysop on enwiki, but even sysops here don't have usernames in this pattern.

CheerfuI SquirreI You might want to see this in source before answering!

Misleading since can be confused withme :). Report to UAA.

Y Common impersonation trick by LTAs - capital 'i' displays as a lowercase 'L'.

LMedicalCentre

Promotional username, would talk with user.

Y, first of all check that the user's edits make it clear that this is a promotional username that represents a company, afterwards I would just report straight to UAA.

Yallaredumb

Disruptive username, would report. Y

Christopher Smith

This is allowed, but probably not a good idea. Still the user creation pages warns people not to use their real name, so they know what they're doing. Would leave them alone.

 Question: Are there any circumstances which would make you report the user to UAA?

If they're editing articles surrounding a celebrity of the same name (such as a congressman with that name) or claiming to be such a person, then yes. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Y

Oshwaah

Would report, seems like an impersonation of the sysop user Oshwah.

Y Nobody dares to impersonate Oshwah!

😜

Would ask them to change; could be misleading/confusing. Emoji usernames are explicitly banned by policy. (Should I open a village pump to request this be prohibited in software?)

Y You won't see this type of username permitted by mediawiki nowadays, and those who have such usernames are usually experienced editors who already had such usernames and are given some leeway. In the event that one somehow gets through, then ask them to change it.

1kdimfi3jgoerto4u5urt9u3u93dhoweeherwrwehehehe

This username clearly isn't such a great idea, but isn't really against policy. I would leave them alone. I would assume they will get around to changing it themselves if they become a serious contributor.

Y/N, I'd report to UAA as a disruptive username - there's no way you can work with someone with that username (though I do see that there are a small group of admins who take no action, the majority will). And as you say, most people who use such usernames are trolls.

---

Hello Cheerful Squirrel, just wanted to congratulate you on getting halfway through the course - you're doing great! The next section is above, this time on the username policy (commonly referred to as UPOL). As always, ping me if you have questions or if you're finished so I can have a look. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Done! Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cheerful Squirrel, I've marked the above - looks like you have a pretty good understanding of UPOL. One question above, then we can move on. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Done! Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Emergencies

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

Fortunately, there's a guideline for cases like this. Please read 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?

In general, it's recommended to report anonymously via email. But since I don't want to include an email on my account, I would leave a talk page message directly with an admin I have a relationship with. I've done this before [29].

I'd recommend creating a separate email account for your on-wiki activities as I do - that way you don't have to reveal your personal email, and I can assure you that it will come in useful for contacting other users privately. There's also discord and IRC for contacting admins, but you also need to contact the Wikimedia foundation.

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)?

Report it anyway! Per your instructions above, I don't have the training to assess it. Y

---

Thanks for the response Cheerful Squirrel, that finishes the part on UPOL - please see the next section above, it's short but pretty important. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Section complete. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cheerful Squirrel, I've marked - please see the next section below. It's also rather short so shouldn't take too long. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users

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

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

---

@Pahunkat: A lot of trolls and vandals engage in their behavior to get attention or attain a sense of recognition or power. By engaging with them, we fulfill this desire and reinforce the behavior, potentially leading to additional or escalating disruption. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Y and on the other hand, refusing them any attention will make their disruption seem “boring” and they will go away. Pahunkat (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Rollback

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 and Stiki.

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

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

Essentially, it can be used to revert obvious bad-faith edits, or my own edits. For edits for which I'm to assume good faith, I must revert the normal way and provide an appropriate explanation. Can also be used to counter widespread vandalism provided an explanation is provided somewhere appropriate.

Y With additional criteria at WP:ROLLBACKUSE but you've got the idea

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

I would undo my rollback with an appropriate edit summary, and if applicable, apologize. Y

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

Never! Y

---

Hello Cheerful Squirrel, please see the next section above. It's the last before the monitoring period and then final exam. I see that you've already got the permission but this section looks at when you can use it and when you cannot. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Thank you; it is done! Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Monitoring period

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

5 day period - Starts

---

Cheerful Squirrel, well done on getting through the content of this course! The above explains what happens next - I'll start the 5-day period from when you next reply to this message. After this comes the final exam, and if that goes well then you will have graduated from the CVUA! Ping me below when ready to start the monitoring period. Pahunkat (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Cheerful Squirrel, I see that you haven't edited since the message, are you alright? Pahunkat (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Thank you for checking in with me. I will be okay long-term, I've been going through some difficulties in real life. Things have eased up, and we can now start the observation period. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're alright Cheerful Squirrel, but I'm perfectly fine if you need to pause for a bit. Pahunkat (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Thank you, much appreciated! This week I am good to go. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, god. My sincere apologies Cheerful Squirrel, I have to confess that I completely forgot about this - please forgive me. If I go a long time without responding, please ping me or ask at my talk page - I've probably done something like this. I couldn't see any serious red flags from looking through your reverts made during the monitoring period - would you be alright to go on to the final exam? Pahunkat (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Not a problem at all, and sure thing! Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Final Exam

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

Part 1

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

1. A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article, having never edited before. Would you treat it differently if they had done the same thing once before?

I would assume good faith and say they're just testing whether editing works, and would use uw-test1 or something personalized. If they've been warned before, there's evidence of bad faith.

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

This aspect of Wikipedia is odd enough that I think it's possible someone might take a bit to get the hang of it. But if they keep doing it after a couple of warnings, there's reason to suspect bad faith.

1. A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?

The first time, I would try to explain the NPOV policy, either in a personalized note or uw-npov1. After that I would escalate up the warning levels: uw-npov2, uw-npov3, and so on.

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

First time assume it's a test and warn uw-test1 or similar. Then escalate following the recommended pattern: uw-test2, uw-test3, uw-vandalism4, AIV.

1. A user removes sourced information from an article, with the summary 'this is wrong'. First time, and after that? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions?

For something like this I wouldn't just slap a warning template. I would ask the user to give more detailed feedback on the talk page and whatnot and cajole them into nicer edit summaries. I would escalate this one slowly, giving another warning or two and try to draw them into a discussion over why they are removing the information. At this point, if no other editor is involved, I would start to use some of the dispute resolution avenues. I'd be hesitant to treat someone like a vandal if they're in a content dispute, even if they're handling it poorly. I suppose if the user only had a history of disruptive contributions, one could use disruptive editing warning templates or try to get an administrator involved, but as a matter of personal preference, I personally don't think I would do that.

Part 2

Which templates warning would give an editor in the following scenarios. If you don't believe a template warning is appropriate outline the steps (for example what you would say) you would take instead.

1. A user blanks Cheesecake.

uw-blank1

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

None if a bot already warned them.

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

None if a bot already warned them.

1. A user puts "CHRIS IS WEIRD!" on Atlanta Airport.

So, if I'm going to assume good faith, there are several good ones that would work here, including uw-npov1 and uw-biog1.

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

uw-delete1

1. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

uw-test1

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

Again, going to great lengths to assume good faith, and assuming this is in a relevant context within the article, uw-npov1.

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

uw-biog1

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

I would do uw-delete1, but uw-delete4im would be justified.

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

Report to AIV.

1. A user blanks your userpage and replaced it with 'I hate this user' (you have had a number of problems with this user in the past).

uw-npa1. Or if all attempts at dialog have already failed, I would write the following on HighInBC's talk page:

I ask for your eye

On how this user treats me

This doesn't seem right

An alternative to reaching out to an individual admin would be AIV.

1. A user adds a spam link to Horoscope, no previous warnings

uw-spam1

1. A user removes an AfD notice from an article whilst the discussion is ongoing, they have received a level 2 warning for doing the same thing

uw-afd3

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

uw-test1

Part 3

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

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

Db-promo

1. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

Db-promo

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

Depends on the article title. If it's a notable movie, it could be a poorly written stub. But if it's not obvious what's being referred to, I would use Db-nocontext.

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

Db-hoax

1. wiki is annoying and useless even I can edit it so dont use it

Db-test

1. He is an olympic swimmer

Wouldn't use CSD, assuming the article title is an Olympic swimmer. It's just a stub.

Part 4

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

1. TheMainStreetBand

Disallowed as promotional username

1. SUBSCRIBETOKURZGESAGT

Disallowed as promotional username

1. Brian's Bot

No issues; people name bots like this all the time.

1. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

Not technically against policy, but a possible signal of WP:NOTHERE

1. WikiAdmin

It's a new username, so clearly it's not an admin (assuming there isn't some unusual context), so this would be a violation of policy as a misleading username.

1. Coles' Staff

Disallowed as promotional username.

1. 12:12, 23 June 2012

Disallowed as a misleading username.

1. PMiller

I would assume good faith here, unless there's some context to suggest that this isn't their name.

1. RealDonaldTrump

I would assume they are probably not Donald Trump unless they provide information otherwise when asked; disallowed as misleading username.

Part 5

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

1. Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?

Not if it's blatant vandalism. If there's any way it could be construed as a content dispute, best to be cautious and get other editors involved.

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

Report to AIV after four warnings per usual; an admin may give a harsher ban if the account has never done anything constructive.

1. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

In the general case, AIV. Sometimes for situations such as long-term abuse or sock puppetry there are more specific places to report such things.

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

WP:UAA

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

In most cases after warnings and discussions have been taken as far as possible, dispute resolution such as meditation is the next step. Emergencies that require immediate action can be reported to AIV, but these situations are rare.

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

First, try to talk directly with the user to the maximum extent possible. If that fails, one can report to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. In some situations, escalating more slowly (such as asking for mediation) could make sense.

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

If seeking feedback on whether a violation has occurred, first try to discuss and work it out amongst the editors frequenting that article's talk page. If there are only two editors, maybe get a Third Opinion. If there's still a dispute, one could open an RFC to get wider community input.

Part 6

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

Number	Diff	Trainer's comment
1	Diff
2	Diff
3	Diff
4	Diff
5	Diff

1. Find and revert five instances of vandalism. Place the diffs below, along with that for any warnings to the user/reports to AIV issued.

Number	Diff	Trainer's comment
1	Diff
2	Diff
3	Diff
4	Diff
5	Diff

---

Hello Cheerful Squirrel, I've inserted the final exam above. You've done well to get this far - good luck! Pahunkat (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)