User:Girth Summit/CVUA/Antila
Hello Antila333, and welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your academy page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible in your answers, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me at my talk page.
Make sure you read through Wikipedia:Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.
- How to use this page
This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.
- The CVUA curriculum
There are several sections of the training course. In some of them, will be asking you to do perform practical exercises; in others, I will ask you to read certain policies and guidelines, and then ask you some questions about their content. To be clear, it is not a problem if you give the wrong answer to any of the questions - making mistakes and discussing them is a crucial part of the learning process. For that reason, it is important that you do not attempt to find previous users' training pages in order to identify the 'right' answers to give: all your answers should be your own, so that we can identify and address any misconceptions that you might have. There is no time pressure to complete the course: we will go at whatever pace works for you, and you can take a pause or ask questions at any point along the way.
- Communication
Counter-vandalism work can result in very large watchlists, which can make it more difficult to monitor pages using that alone. For this reason, I will ping you whenever I update this page with some feedback or a new task; I would also ask you to ping me when you have completed a task, so that I get a notification telling me that it's ready for review. See WP:PING for details on how to do this if you aren't sure. GirthSummit (blether) 12:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Repinging Antila333 - apologies, I spelled your username incorrectly the first time. GirthSummit (blether) 12:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The start[edit]
Twinkle[edit]
I see from your contributions that you already use Twinkle - that's the tool that we will use for this course. Let me know if you have any questions about it.
Good faith and vandalism[edit]
When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. While it is often necessary to revert such edits, we treat them differently from vandalism, so it is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the tasks in this section.
- Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
Vandalism edits are those which are made with an aim to disrupt and vandalise Wikipedia while a good faith edit is an edit which is made with good intention but due to lack of experience the edit is unhelpful.
Girth Summit, completed. Antila333 (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is correct as far as it goes - the key is the editor's intention. An edit made with the intention of improving an article is not vandalism - even if the edit is badly written, wrong, unsourced, or even just random characters because someone is just testing how to edit. Vandalism in intentionally setting out to cause harm to our project. The problem is figuring out what the user's intention was - please address that part of the question. What sort of things would you be looking at in order to tell them apart? GirthSummit (blether) 14:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, if a user adds some letters or removes some, I would consider that as a good faith test edit and if someone adds some content to an article without providing a source, that will be a good faith unsourced edit. However, if someone adds something like 'he is gay' or 'fuck wikipedia' to an article, I would consider that as a vandalism. Antila333 (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- You're correct about these examples - test edits and unsourced edits are not vandalism, whereas the examples you have indicated are most likely to be vandalism (with the possible exception of 'he is gay' - that is something that vandals often add, but it might also be true - that would be worth looking into further). 'Fuck Wikipedia' is an obvious, unambiguous example of vandalism, ones like that are easy - other cases aren't always so simple. The rule we have to abide by, therefore, is AGF - assume good faith, unless you are certain that it's not good faith. That doesn't mean that we don't revert - it just means that slightly different rules apply, and we use Twinkle in a slightly different way. Next question below. GirthSummit (blether) 15:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, if a user adds some letters or removes some, I would consider that as a good faith test edit and if someone adds some content to an article without providing a source, that will be a good faith unsourced edit. However, if someone adds something like 'he is gay' or 'fuck wikipedia' to an article, I would consider that as a vandalism. Antila333 (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. You don't need to revert the example you find, and I am happy for you to use previous undos in your edit history if you wish. Place diffs below
Vandalism
Definitely. I agree with your escalating past a level 1 for this - it's highly offensive, and in a BLP - a 4im warning would not have been over the top for that.
- Definitely.
- I don't know what these phrases mean; Google's translation didn't make a lot of sense, but they looked rather insulting. I'm guessing that you know better than I do here, and am happy to accept your judgement that this is definitely vandalism.
Good faith
- Agreed - this is inappropriate puffery, but it's not unambiguous vandalism (although repeatedly doing it would be disruptive).
- Yes - random deletion of letters, but nothing offensive - it could just be a test edit, unless there was a history of similar edits in the IP's contribs that would suggest they are doing it intentionally.
- As with the previous one.
Girth Summit, I've posted all the diffs above, pls take a look. Antila333 (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Good work - I agree with your assessment of these edits. Next task below... GirthSummit (blether) 16:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Warning and reporting[edit]
When you use Twinkle to warn a user, you have a number of options to choose from: you can select the kind of warning (for different offences), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4, for increasing severity). Knowing which warning to issue and what level is very important. Further information can be found at WP:WARN and WP:UWUL.
- Please answer the following questions
- Why do we warn users?
To educate the vandals and try to change their intention so that they can learn from their mistakes and edit constructively instead of repeating their actions.
In part, yes. Warnings direct them to the policies they are breaking, informing them that their accounts will be blocked if they continue. The system of escalated warnings also serves as a useful note to other patrollers and to admins - if an admin sees that a user has received multiple warnings but continued to vandalise, it is an easy decision to block their account or IP address; if nobody has ever warned them though, it's a harder call.
- When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
There are two instances-
- If a user adds very offensive words to BLP articles such as racist abuse.
- If they have vandalized many times but have not recieved a warning yet.
- Absolutely.
- Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it? (Hint - read the link before answering!)
Yes, per H:SUBST were instructed to do substitute a template if we are adding it manually on user talk page so that content will displayed. Via Twinkle It's done automatically.
- What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
Report to WP:AIV.
- Yes - use Twinkle for this, it's fast and easy. (Huggle will also do it automatically if a user has already had a level 4).
Girth Summit, completed. Antila333 (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Antila333 Good answers above, I'm happy to move onto the next stage where you revert some vandalism and issue warnings. Please see the next task below. (I am assuming that you are already familiar with how to the Recent Changes feed, setting your filters to identify likely vandalism - I find that to be the easiest way to find examples to work with, let me know if you need any assistance with this.) GirthSummit (blether) 17:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. For each revert/warning please fill in a line on the table below.
| # | Diff of your revert | Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff | Trainer's Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Special:Diff/948812877 | Vandalism as the user called the subject a potato, could have been a test edit but the user had vandalized previously. |  Agreed - adding the word potato once could be a test edit - adding it to every section looks more like vandalism, and the history is also indicative.
|
| 2 | Special:Diff/948494732 | Unsourced vandalism as the user called the subject gay which is also a BLP violation. | Not just calling them gay - calling them a gay porn star - definitely vandalism.
|
| 3 | Special:Diff/948812757 | Could have been test edit, but since the user has been continuously adding gibberish text to many articles it is vandalism. | Definitely vandalism - not random gibberish though, but badly spelled Spanish. Vandalism nonetheless!
|
| 4 | Special:Diff/948825289 | Test edit. |  OK, I find it hard to understand why the editor made that edit - maybe it's a test, or maybe they were trying to indicated something about the order of those ministers, or something like that. I would have left an edit summary here though - not much, perhaps just 'Why are we numbering the ministers?' or even 'Meaning unclear' - but since it's not immediately obvious, an edit summary would have been a good call.
|
| 5 | Special:Diff/948698773 | This could be a disruptive or a test edit. | Yeah, I'd probably lean towards vandalism for this one. Randomly removing text is one thing, but coupled with changing the date the company was founded to the 29th century is too much.
|
| 6 | Special:Diff/948490299 | Pure vandalism as the user added bad words about the subject. | Absolutely.
|
| 7 | Special:Diff/948853803 | Test edit. | This one is OK not to bother with an edit summary - they introduced a spelling mistake, with a gibberish edit summary, nobody could be in any doubt about why you reverted.
|
| 8 | Special:Diff/948298028 | Vandalism as the user changed the subject's name and birthplace. | I agree - probably a kid adding their own name and birthplace to the article.
|
| 9 | Special:Diff/948466625 | Vandalism. | Yep.
|
| 10 | Special:Diff/947592078 | Vandalism as the user added bad words. | Definitely.
|
Hi Girth, I've provided all the diffs above, pls take a look. Antila333 (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Really good work on these, Antila333 - I agree with all your assessments. Just one revert where I would probably have left a quick edit summary, but from what I've seen above you've got a good handle on this already. Let's move on... GirthSummit (blether) 14:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Protection and speedy deletion[edit]
Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only an administrator can protect or delete pages; however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion or request protection. You can use the Twinkle menu to request page protection or speedy deletion (the RPP or CSD options).
Protection[edit]
Please read the protection policy.
- In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
When there is high volume of vandalism coming from numerous new users and IPs which means blocking them is not going to stop the disruption then semi protection should be applied.
- Yes - the second part is crucial. If it's just one or two accounts/IPs, they can be blocked to stop the disruption without affecting anybody else. When it's coming from lots of different accounts/IPs so that blocking them isn't stopping the disruption, page protection is applied.
- In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?
When a page receives low volume of vandalism over a long period of time the pending changes protection should be applied. This means the pending changes reviewers will have to review these edits and take necessary action.
- In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
Full protection is only applied when edit warring and serious disruption from extended confirmed users occurs. Since vandalism usually comes from new users and IPs, semi protection is enough to stop them but when established users are edit warring and breaking the WP:3RR rule, then full protection is applied to stop it.
- Yes. This is quite unusual, but occasionally when a subject is very topical, even established users can edit war disruptively - full protection is generally applied for a short period, forcing the users to discuss their differences and arrive at consensus.
- In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
When a deleted page is being repeatedly recreated then salting takes place. These are usually for users who are constantly trying to create a promotional page for themselves or a non-notable person or company and for offensive page names and attack pages. This protects the page title which is repeatedly recreated after being deleted.
- In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
It is very unusual since talk pages are less vandalism targets compared to main space articles. When there is serious cases of vandalism it should be semi protected for a limited period of time.
- Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request at WP:RPP below. (Note - it might take you a while to come across a circumstance where this is required - we can continue with the next section of the course before you do this, but when the need arises please post here and ping me).
Girth Summit, completed and I have a question, when should a page be extended confirmed protected? Antila333 (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Antila333 Good answers. See WP:ECP about extended confirmed - basically, if semi-protection isn't working, an admin may decide to apply ECP instead. Semi stops IPs and brand new accounts, but it only takes four days and a few edits to get autoconfirmed, so if someone is determined to cause disruption they can create a few socks, get them all to autoconfirmed, and then disrupt a semi-protected page. Getting extended confirmed takes a lot longer (30 days, 500 edits), so it's more of a barrier to newcomers looking to cause a bit of trouble.
- Well done on all your work so far - you're doing great. I'll add the next section tomorrow. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit:, looks like you didn't review my diff of requesting protection. Antila333 (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Antila333 Sorry, yes I did review it - I guessed that, since it was accepted by another admin, there wasn't much point in me saying that it was a good report! GirthSummit (blether) 17:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Antila333 OK - next section below... GirthSummit (blether) 12:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion[edit]
Please read WP:CSD.
- In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?
Pages should only be speedy deleted if they meet any of the WP:CSD criteria.The most common we come across are G12 (copivio), G11 (promo), A7 (non-notable person or company), G3 (vandalism and hoaxes) and G10 (attack page). If a page doesn't meet any of these criteria but still fails notability guidelines it should be taken to WP:AFD.
Girth Summit, completed. Antila333 (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Good Antila333 - those probably are amongst the most common ones. If you come across an article or userpage that needs to be speedily deleted, use Twinkle to nominate it, and an admin will review and, if they agree with your assessment, delete it quite quickly. Please see some examples below... GirthSummit (blether) 16:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion examples[edit]
In past iterations of this course, students have been asked to go out and actually tag pages for deletion, but with the introduction of WP:ACPERM, the amount of straight vandalism that gets created directly in mainspace has reduced dramatically. As such, I'm going to ask you to say how you would act in a set of hypothetical scenarios. What would you do if you saw the page listed in each scenario? Note that not all scenarios may warrant speedy deletion.
- Scenario 1
A user with the username "BobSucks" creates an article called "John Smith" that contains solely the following text:
John Smith is the worst elementary school teacher on the planet.
Tag with G3 and G10 as a vandalism and attack page.
- The G3 isn't wrong, but it's not necessary, the G10 would work on its own. Just so you know, the admin dashboard has a special area notifying admins of any outstanding G10 Speedy requests, separate from other speedies - they're usually dealt with very quickly.
- 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 G11 as a promotional userpage under a promotional username, I would also report the user to WP:UAA.
- You don't normally need to both with a report to UAA - if you select 'Promotional user page under a promotional username', the deleting admin should check the account name and block. I agree though that, if the page were deleted without the account being blocked, a report to UAA wouldn't be inappropriate.
- Scenario 3
A user creates an article titled "Edward Gordon" with the following text:
'''Edward Gordon''' (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 5,000 subscribers on YouTube.
Starring in school plays, self publishing albums and having over 5000 subscribers on YouTube does not make him notable, therefore I would tag it under A7.
- Yes - nothing here indicated importance or significance, A7 would work.
- 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.)
After a google search, I found a few mentions about him and he is even mentioned in The Nice. So, I would redirect it to The Nice.
- Good answer. Always consider whether a redirect is more useful than a deletion - sometimes, for example, a person might not be independently notable themselves, but if they are a part of a notable group/band/company or whatever, a redirect could be useful for someone searching for them. If someone reverts your redirect, you can nominate to AfD, noting in your nomination that you originally redirected but the original author reverted. If there is a consensus to redirect, an admin will instate the redirect, and the original author would risk being blocked for disruption if they continued to revert it.
- 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?
In the first scenario I would tag it under G12 as a blatant copyright violation. As for the second scenario nothing changes as we assume copyright exists even if it’s not asserted.
- Correct on both counts - we assume copyright even if it's not asserted. For us to use text, we need there to be quite a detailed statement outlining the conditions under which it is released, and even then it needs to be attributed properly to the original source.
- Scenario 6
A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.
First, I’d do a google translate on the text, if it’s Vandalism, attack page, promotion or copied from another I appropriate CSD tags, if it’s none of these I would compare it with the relevant foreign language Wikipedia, if it was identical I would tag it under A2, if it wasn’t I would flag for translation.
- Correct.
- Scenario 7
A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
This can be a sign that the author is requesting deletion so I would tag it under G7.
- 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 a different namespace?
If it’s on a user page, I wouldn’t do anything assuming that the user is testing and that they are free to test on their user space but if it’s in the mainspace I would tag it under G1.
- Yep - in user space this isn't breaking any policies - it's not promotional, it's not attacking anyone, it's just gibberish. In article space though, it would be G1.
Hey Girth, I’ve completed answering these scenarios and just for info I have been granted the pending changes reviewer rights. Antila333 (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Antila333 Great work - glad to hear you were given the pending changes right, I didn't think it would take long. I'll post the next section shortly. GirthSummit (blether) 13:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Antila333 See below GirthSummit (blether) 14:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Girth, pls take note that my username is Antila333 not Antilla333 so I didn’t get the pings, pls ping me correctly next time. Antila333 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ha - yes, sorry, I realise I keep doing that! I usually fix it before publishing changes, but obviously I am still forgetting sometimes. I'm afraid that my fingers just can't get used to having two vowels separated by a single l, it's an unusual spelling construction in English. I'll try not make sure I don't do it again. Best GirthSummit (blether) 15:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Girth, pls take note that my username is Antila333 not Antilla333 so I didn’t get the pings, pls ping me correctly next time. Antila333 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Revision Deletion and Oversight[edit]
Please read WP:Revdel and WP:Oversight.
Occasionally, vandalism will be so extreme that it needs to be removed from publicly accessible revision histories - the criteria for these are described in the articles above. Revision deletion hides the edit from anyone except admins; oversight provides an even greater level of restriction, with only oversighters able to see the comments. The threshold between the two is quite fine - I've been on the wrong side of it a few times. If you are in doubt as to whether revdel or oversight is required, the best bet is to forward it to the oversight team - whoever reviews it will be able to make the decision and act on it.
- If you believe an edit needs to be revision deleted, how would you request that?
I'd either send a talk page message or email to an administrator, or request it at the #wikipedia-en-revdel IRC channel.
- The best approach, in terms of speed of response and privacy, is the IRC channel. Only admins can see what you put there, and in my experience (from before I had access to the revdel buttons myself), requests would usually be answered within seconds, or a few minutes at most. Anything you put on an admin's talk page is likely to be noticed very quickly (since admins' talk pages usually have quite a lot of watchers) - that can result in publicising, rather than hiding, the edit. E-mailing an admin is more private, but since only one admin will receive it, you can't be sure how long it will be until that admin reads their e-mail and responds. IRC is the best bet most of the time.
- If you believe that it's so serious it needs oversight, how would you request that?
I would contact an oversighter or email the oversight team from Special:EmailUser/Oversight.
- The oversight e-mail works well; you can also use IRC for that, but don't post the diff directly. Log into IRC, and type !oversight. If an oversighter is logged in, they will invite you to private message them, and you can post the diff to them that way. E-mail is fine, but if it's sensitive, IRC tends to get a faster response.
Girth Summit, completed. Antila333 (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Antila333 good stuff - next section below... GirthSummit (blether) 10:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Usernames[edit]
Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol the User creation log to check for new users with inappropriate usernames (note that you can set this to view 500 users rather than the default 50 - I find that easier to scroll through quickly, and the link on my userpage takes you there directly). There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed:
- Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia (words like admin, sysop etc), usernames that impersonate other people (either famous people, or other Wikipedians' usernames), or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
- Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.
- Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
- Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.
Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particular attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.
- Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why). If you need more information before deciding what to do, explain what more you need.
- BGates
First, I would look at their edits and if they were editing Microsoft related articles or claiming to be Bill Gates, I would report them at WP:UAA but if their edits are fine, I'll leave them alone.
- BestlifeMedicalCentre
This looks like a promotional username, if the user has made any edits I would look at them and if they seem promotional I would report them but if the edits are ok I would start a conversation with the user and suggest them to read WP:UPOL for changing their username.
- G1rth Summit
Cleary impersonating you, report to WP:UAA.
- JH_CollinsPublishing
The word 'JH' is ok but 'CollinsPublishing' looks like a COI. If they are editing the article Collins Booksellers, I would suggest them to read WP:COI and WP:PAID unless they have put a COI template on their userpage and if their edits are ok I'd leave them alone.
- JoeTheSysop
Impersonating a sysop, report to UAA.
- Antilla333
Same as no.3.
- DonaldTrump
Impersonating Donald Trump, immediate report to UAA.
- FuckAllYouAssholes
Report to UAA as an offensive username.
- SlippySausage
I researched a bit and found out there is a song by the name 'SlippySausage' but that doesn't violate the username policy. So it's ok.
- 😜
This is technically a violation of WP:NOEMOJI but not one that warrants an immediate response to UAA. I will start a discussion if you could be bothered - personally, I'd look at their work and if they are ok I'd just leave them alone.
Girth Summit, completed but I was unable to answer the 'SlippySausage' one, can you help me? Antila333 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Antila333 OK, so I've got something to ask you at this point. So far, you have been doing very well - giving very accurate answers to questions, some of which have caused problems even for really good students in the past - and you have been doing all if this remarkably quickly. This time however, I changed one of the questions, so that it wasn't one that appeared in my previous students' training pages - and immediately you're stuck? It's not a trick question, it's not nearly as difficult as some of the ones you've already answered with 100% accuracy - I'm dubious. Please be honest with me, I don't want to have to go back through the daily view logs for each of my former students' training pages to check this - have you been looking at the answers that other students gave in their courses? GirthSummit (blether) 12:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, I haven't looked at your other student's training page but the username 'SlippySausage' looked a difficult to me, the other usernames at least had a meaning but I was unable to find any meaning for this one. A Google search showed results for 'SlipperySausage' but not the abovementioned one so I asked for some help. After your question, I did some more research and found out there is a song by the name of 'SlippySausage' and have answered the question. Antila333 (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Antila333 I just took a look at the page view statistics for my own training page with Mz7, and for Horst Hof's training course. I'd prefer that we be open and honest with each other. Are you sure that there's nothing else you want to say about this? GirthSummit (blether) 13:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Girth, there's something I need to get off my chest, yes I did view all of your student's training page but I only copied two answers, the third question of the warning and reporting section and the first question of the revision deletion and oversight section. Antila333 (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Antila333 So, why did you look at them? Are you in a hurry to finish the course quickly? There's no time limit, you can take as long as you like to complete it; if you're not enjoying it you don't have to keep doing it. You don't win anything for getting the answers right first time - and you don't learn as much that way. As a teacher, I can tell you that a much better approach is to come to your own conclusions from the material I've given you, and to work out your own answers - if you make a mistake, we can discuss it, and you'll learn more than just checking to see the right answer.
- I promised not to kick you off the course, and I won't do that, but I asked you not to look at those pages and you ignored that request. I don't particularly want to keep checking the page view logs, but I'll have to do that if I can't trust you. Will you promise that you won't look at those pages any more? GirthSummit (blether) 15:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Girth, there's something I need to get off my chest, yes I did view all of your student's training page but I only copied two answers, the third question of the warning and reporting section and the first question of the revision deletion and oversight section. Antila333 (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, I promise I will never look at those pages anymore. I sincerely apologize for my actions. Antila333 (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Antila333 OK, well based on your assurance, I'm happy to continue the course. Please do stay away from those pages - you will get a lot more out of this in the long run if you do. You probably don't need me to tell you that the answers you gave to the username questions were correct. With regard to the 'SlippySausage' one, it could be perceived as a sexual innuendo, and it would attract my interest if I saw it, but it is not explicit enough on its own to be a violation. With borderline cases like that, I look at the contributions carefully. Often they are vandalising - if so, report to AIV. If they were doing good work though, you should simply leave them alone - slightly suggestive usernames are not banned, and different people will see double meanings in all sorts of different things - my own username generated quite a bit of speculation at my RFA. I'll upload the next section shortly. GirthSummit (blether) 12:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, pinging you just in case if you've forgotten. Antila333 (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Antila333 Not forgotten, just busy - see below. GirthSummit (blether) 14:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, pinging you just in case if you've forgotten. Antila333 (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Emergencies[edit]
I hope this never happens, but as you participate in counter-vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible that you may come across a threat of physical harm. In the past, we have had vandals submit death threats in Wikipedia articles, as well as possible suicide notes. The problem is, Wikipedia editors don't have the proper training to evaluate whether these threats are credible in most cases.
Fortunately, there's a guideline for cases like this. Please read Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm carefully and respond to the questions below.
- Who should you contact when you encounter a threat of harm on Wikipedia? What details should you include in your message?
I would send a email at emergency@wikimedia.org with a diff of that message and alongside I would contact an admin for revision deletion of that threat.
- Yes on both counts. Anyone investigating from the Emergencies team will be able to see revdelled (or even oversighted) edits, so both actions are a good idea.
- 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)?
I would contact an experienced admin with a diff of the message and would leave it upon them to take the final decision.
- Contacting an admin isn't a bad idea, but be aware that the advice at the above link is to report it any way. Use your best judgment of course, but if you think there is even a slim chance that it's a credible threat then report it, just to be on the safe side.
Girth Summit, completed. Antila333 (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Good - see next section below. GirthSummit (blether) 11:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Dealing with difficult users[edit]
Occasionally, some vandals will not appreciate your good work and try to harass or troll you. In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, you should not engage with them and leave a note at WP:ANI. If they vandalise your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. Please read WP:DENY.
- Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?
These trolls do what they do for seeking attention and recognition, by interacting with them and getting upset by their behavior they get what they want. However, if we deny recognition to these trolls they dont get what they want and hence might get bored and discouraged and might stop their actions. If a troll is harassing me, I would keep calm and simply report the user to ANI.
- How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you? (Note - this is not a trick question, but it's not a straightforward one. Have a think about it, make your suggestions, and then we'll have a discussion. There isn't necessarily a clear right answer, but I'd be interested to know the factors you'd consider.)
Although a good faith editor might be annoyed with us for reverting their edits, and might still show their irritation, but their intention determines the difference. A troll will deliberately try to annoy people in order to get attention. It ultimately comes down to whether they are annoyed at us or are trying to be annoying. Also, if they act calm, then I most definitely wouldn't say they're a troll. Basically, a good faith editor will get annoyed at us while a troll will deliberately try to annoy us.
Girth Summit, done. Antila333 (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is correct. My advice to students is always to investigate further when someone comes to your talk page. This is especially important with IP users - doing counter-vandalism work, you might end up believing that all IP users are vandals (because a lot of them are!), but there are some long-term IP users who do a lot of good work - indeed, I know a couple of very prolific counter-vandalism users who don't use registered accounts. Look at their past contributions; look at what they are saying to you; don't look at the tone in which they are saying it, because they may just be blowing off steam. If you've made a mistake, apologise immediately and, if they haven't already reverted you, do it yourself. If you haven't made a mistake, and they are just trolling you - report to AIV, they'll be blocked immediately, we take a very dim view of harassment. Next task below... GirthSummit (blether) 14:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Sample Work[edit]
So, I'm satisfied that you understand about reverting and warning users, from the examples in the early section of this course. What I'd like to see some evidence of is reporting to UAA, and CSD tagging of problematic user pages (U5, G11, G12, or G10 will be the most likely). Take a look at this feed - it shows the latest 500 accounts to have been registered. If the 'contribs' is blue, it means that they have already made contributions; if the username is blue, it means they've created a userpage. Spend a bit of time patrolling that, and you're likely to find some promotional pages that you can request revision deletion for, and some accounts with promotional usernames that are editing promtionally. Find five examples of each, deal with them appropriately, and post diffs below. (Don't worry if the pages get deleted - I'll still be able to see it.)
- Reports to UAA
- Special:Diff/950274999
- Special:Diff/950279876
- Special:Diff/950320660
- Special:Diff/950452859
- Special:Diff/950320660
- CSD tags
Girth Summit, completed. Antila333 (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Antila333 good work. I note that #3 and #5 in your UAA reports are actually the same diff, but five was a fairly arbitrary number and it's clear you know how to do this, so I'll overlook at. GirthSummit (blether) 10:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Rollback[edit]
In light of your recent contributions, I expect that if you apply for the rollback permission at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, an administrator would be happy to enable it on your account, but first we should demonstrate that you understand what the tool is, and the responsibilities that go along with it.
The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced counter vandalism operatives to revert vandalism with the click of one button, not unlike the "rollback" button that you've already been using in Twinkle. This would give you a new rollback button in addition to the three you've been seeing in Twinkle. The new rollback button is slightly faster than the Twinkle rollback button, but more importantly, having the rollback right gives you access to downloadable counter-vandalism software like Huggle and Stiki.
If you're interested, take a look at our rollback guideline at WP:Rollback and feel free to answer the questions below. The rollback right is not an essential part of this course, so if you're not interested, feel free to say so and we'll skip this section.
- Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.
Rollback should 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 should not be used to revert good faith edits that you disagree with, or in general any reverts that need an edit summary or to edit war.
- Hopefully this will never happen, but it does occasionally. If you accidentally use rollback, what should you do?
We should revert or click the undo button yourself with an edit summary explaining that the use of rollback was accidental.
- Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?
No, it doesn't give us the option to leave an edit summary, we should use the blue or green twinkle rollback button.
Girth Summit, completed. Antila333 (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is all correct Antila333. If you would like to make a request for rollback rights, I expect that it would be accepted - you can reference this training page in your application. (I could enable them myself, but as I explained before, I generally prefer for another admin to review my students' requests). If you aren't interested in applying for the permission just now, we can still proceed with the course - rollback isn't essential for countervandalism work, especially if you intend to continue using Twinkle rather than Huggle or Stiki. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, just saw your comment at my rollback request, hopefully it will be granted. In the meantime, I am waiting for the next assignment of the course. Antila333 (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Antila333 Well, the course is at an end now - all except for the final exam... See below
- Girth Summit, just saw your comment at my rollback request, hopefully it will be granted. In the meantime, I am waiting for the next assignment of the course. Antila333 (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Girth, at the top of the next section you wrote 'Alt Exam' does that mean there will be one more exam? And in the question 6 of part 2 the linked article Edam Cheese dosent exist. Pls explain the following. Antila333 (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just typos - I forgot to rename the section when I copied it across, and there shouldn't have been a capital in Edam cheese. GirthSummit (blether) 11:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Girth, at the top of the next section you wrote 'Alt Exam' does that mean there will be one more exam? And in the question 6 of part 2 the linked article Edam Cheese dosent exist. Pls explain the following. Antila333 (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Final Exam[edit]
Please read each of the following questions carefully, and ensure that you have responded fully - some of them ask you to expand on what you would do in different situations. When responding to numbered questions please start your response with "#:" (except where shown otherwise - with **). You don't need to worry about signing your answers.
Part 1[edit]
- For each of these examples, please state whether you would call the edit(s) described as vandalism or good faith edit, a reason for that, and how you would deal with the situation (ensuring you answer the questions where applicable).
- A user adds 'What does this button do?' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
- For the first time, I would consider it to be a test edit and would give {{uw-test1}} warning to the user, however if they continue after that I would give vandalism warnings culminating in an AIV report if they continue even after that.
- For the first time, I would consider it to be a test edit and would give {{uw-test1}} warning to the user, however if they continue after that I would give vandalism warnings culminating in an AIV report if they continue even after that.
- A user inserts '###################################' into an article, having never edited before. Would you treat it differently if they had done the same thing once before?
- For the first time, I would consider it as a test edit and would give a {{uw-test1}} warning to the user. But if they had done it previously I would consider it as a vandalism and would give them vandalism warnings, if its continued I would report them to AIV.
- For the first time, I would consider it as a test edit and would give a {{uw-test1}} warning to the user. But if they had done it previously I would consider it as a vandalism and would give them vandalism warnings, if its continued I would report them to AIV.
- A user deletes the first three paragraphs from an article, without leaving an edit summary. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?
- Depends on the sources, if they were reliable I'd revert the edit and give a {{uw-delete1}} warning to the user, if they continued I would give higher levels of warnings culminating in an AIV report if it's still continued.
- Depends on the sources, if they were reliable I'd revert the edit and give a {{uw-delete1}} warning to the user, if they continued I would give higher levels of warnings culminating in an AIV report if it's still continued.
- A user adds their signature to an article after once being given a {{Uw-articlesig}} warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?
- If they were doing it without adding any useful content, I'd treat the edit as vandalism and warn the user with {{uw-vandalism2}}. If they were adding useful content with sourcing, I wouldn't revert, but would edit manually to remove the signature but retain the content, and rather than using a warning template I'd attempt to engage with them on their talk page, explaining that I appreciate their content creation, but that signatures aren't used in article space and are considered disruptive.
- If they were doing it without adding any useful content, I'd treat the edit as vandalism and warn the user with {{uw-vandalism2}}. If they were adding useful content with sourcing, I wouldn't revert, but would edit manually to remove the signature but retain the content, and rather than using a warning template I'd attempt to engage with them on their talk page, explaining that I appreciate their content creation, but that signatures aren't used in article space and are considered disruptive.
- A user removes sourced information from a BLP, with the summary 'this is wrong'. First time, and after that? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions?
- Depends on the sources, if the sources were reliable and verified content and the contributor had a good contributing history. I'd have a talk with the editor over the matter and revert the edit the blue rollback button. If the contributor has a history of vandalising/disruptive edits then of course I'll start with {{uw-delete2}} and go higher if required.
- Good - always check the sources actually support the content, and are reliable, before restoring anything. Unexplained deletions are very common, and 90% of the time need to be reverted - but the other 10% they are valid. Be sure before you reinstate.
- Depends on the sources, if the sources were reliable and verified content and the contributor had a good contributing history. I'd have a talk with the editor over the matter and revert the edit the blue rollback button. If the contributor has a history of vandalising/disruptive edits then of course I'll start with {{uw-delete2}} and go higher if required.
Part 2[edit]
- Which templates warning would give an editor in the following scenarios. If you don't believe a template warning is appropriate outline the steps (for example what you would say) you would take instead.
- A user blanks Pasta.
- {{uw-blank1}}
- {{uw-blank1}}
- A user blanks a section of Cricket without giving an explanation.
- {{uw-delete1}}
- {{uw-delete1}}
- A user adds random characters to Aardvark.
- {{uw-test1}}
- {{uw-test1}}
- A user adds 'Donald is the best!' to United States.
- {{uw-npov1}} for the first time, if they continue then I would give vandalism warnings if they still dont stop, I would report them to AIV.
- A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Donald Trump.
- {{uw-attempt1}}
- {{uw-attempt1}}
- A user puts "I HATE CHEESE!" on Edam cheese.
- {{uw-vandalism1}}
- {{uw-vandalism1}}
- A user adds 'and he was seen dropping litter in Hyde Park' to Hugh Grant.
- {{uw-biog1}}
- {{uw-biog1}}
- A new user adds curse words to your user page (this is their first edit).
- First I'd give the user a {{uw-harass3}} warning and would then contact a checkuser if the user had previous accounts or vandalized using IP address as it's highly unlikely that a new user's first edit would be trying to harass me. If it's a personal attack I would take them to ANI.
- First I'd give the user a {{uw-harass3}} warning and would then contact a checkuser if the user had previous accounts or vandalized using IP address as it's highly unlikely that a new user's first edit would be trying to harass me. If it's a personal attack I would take them to ANI.
- A user blanks Dell, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
- {{uw-blank4im}}
- {{uw-blank4im}}
- A user blanks Dell, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
- Report to WP:AIV.
- Report to WP:AIV.
Part 3[edit]
- What CSD tag you would put on the following articles? (The content below represents the entire content of the article).
- Tim Spinks is the fastest runner in Park Grove School, and won the house cup three years running.
- A7
- A7
- NCPP Delivery gives fast, efficient delivery service - go to npcc.com for more info!
- G11
- G11
- Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
- A1 or A7
- Either would work, A1 is probably better (who is Joe? There's not enough to identify the subject).
- A1 or A7
- The Island of Orkvanderland is an island three hundred miles off the coast of Western Australia, inhabited by orks.
- Nothing called Island of Orkvanderland exists so tag with A11.
- This is more of a G3 - blatant hoax. A11 is more for things invented by the author, like a word they've made up, or a new language they've invented or something like that.
- Nothing called Island of Orkvanderland exists so tag with A11.
- Terry is the a great singer.
- A7
- A7
- Fuck all you assholes!
- G3
- Yes - this is G3 vandalism.
- G3
Part 4[edit]
- Are the following new (logged in) usernames violations of the username policy? Describe why or why not and what you would do about it (if they are a breach).
- TheCosmicPatrollers
- This violates the username policy since it implies shared use, but I'd look at their edits first, if they were promotional I'd report them otherwise I'd leave them alone.
- It looks like it might be a band name or something, but if there's no evidence that they're writing about something of that name then there's no disruption to worry about.
- This violates the username policy since it implies shared use, but I'd look at their edits first, if they were promotional I'd report them otherwise I'd leave them alone.
- Poopsniffer
- The username is immature and possibly indicative of vandalism or trolling, but it's not offensive enough to report to UAA if it is a good faith editor. I would look at the user's contributions and report to AIV if they were a vandalism only account, but if their edits were constructive I would ignore it. I could open a discussion at WP:RFCN if I really had a problem with the username.
- It's a silly name, but not offensive to block without evidence of disruption.
- The username is immature and possibly indicative of vandalism or trolling, but it's not offensive enough to report to UAA if it is a good faith editor. I would look at the user's contributions and report to AIV if they were a vandalism only account, but if their edits were constructive I would ignore it. I could open a discussion at WP:RFCN if I really had a problem with the username.
- AntiVandalBot
- Well, there is already a bot account named AntiVandalBot so technically this account cant be created. However, if there wasn't already an account by this username I'd check if this is a bot, if it's not I'd report it to UAA.
- Really? Ha - I just checked, you're right! It hasn't been active in a long time, but it looks like I'll have to change this question. Well, you're right anyway - unapproved accounts that look like bot accounts aren't permitted.
- Well, there is already a bot account named AntiVandalBot so technically this account cant be created. However, if there wasn't already an account by this username I'd check if this is a bot, if it's not I'd report it to UAA.
- Joshtheadmin
- Claiming be an admin, report to UAA.
- Claiming be an admin, report to UAA.
- poiuytrewassdfhukjhgffghjghhkhgfhdrhjjv9876543
- This is long and tedious to read, so probably violates WP:UNCONF. I'd look at their editing history, and see what they were up to. If they were vandalising, I'd report them to AIV, if they were doing good work, I'd drop them a note with a link to the policy, and suggest that they consider changing their username, or at least create a signature that is more readable, if they didn't respond I will report it to UAA.
- This is long and tedious to read, so probably violates WP:UNCONF. I'd look at their editing history, and see what they were up to. If they were vandalising, I'd report them to AIV, if they were doing good work, I'd drop them a note with a link to the policy, and suggest that they consider changing their username, or at least create a signature that is more readable, if they didn't respond I will report it to UAA.
- GeoffBarnes
- Impersonating Geoff Barnes, report to UAA.
You'll note that the Geoff Barnes we have an article about is a fictional character in a UK TV soap opera. Geoff and Barnes are both very common names - there's no indication that this is an attempt to deceive, it's likely that it's just someone's real name, which is permitted. When you see an username that you think might be an attempt to impersonate somebody, look at their editing - does it confirm your suspicion? If so, report to UAA. If not, it's likely just to be a coincidence. And if it's a fictional character, it isn't a problem (otherwise admins like Beeblebrox and Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington had better watch out!).
- Impersonating Geoff Barnes, report to UAA.
- JeffBridgesFan
- This dosent violate the username since it isn't claiming to be Jeff Bridges but rather claiming to be his fan, I'd look at their edits first, if they are vandalising or claiming to be Jeff Bridges, I'd report them, If they are ok I'd leave them alone.
- Yes, nothing wrong with saying that you're a fan of someone.
- This dosent violate the username since it isn't claiming to be Jeff Bridges but rather claiming to be his fan, I'd look at their edits first, if they are vandalising or claiming to be Jeff Bridges, I'd report them, If they are ok I'd leave them alone.
Part 5[edit]
- Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.
- Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
- No, reverting obvious vandalism dosent get us involved in an edit war. However if there is doubt whether the edit is vandalism we should be more cautious and attempt to communicate with the user on their talk page.
- Reverting obvious vandalism isn't edit warring, but only obvious vandalism - unsourced assertions, removal of content, stuff like that - you are right, tread carefully. If in doubt, put an edit warring warning on the other user's talk page, start a thread on the article's talk page about the content, and stop before you get to 3RR.
- No, reverting obvious vandalism dosent get us involved in an edit war. However if there is doubt whether the edit is vandalism we should be more cautious and attempt to communicate with the user on their talk page.
- Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
- Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
- Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
- Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
- Where and how should an edit war be reported?
- Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
- Normally at WP:BLPN but if it is serious then at the IRC revdel channel.
- Normally at WP:BLPN but if it is serious then at the IRC revdel channel.
Hi Girth, I've finished the exam, pls review my answers. Antila333 (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit, thanks for reviewing my answers till part 3, but in the 4th question of part 3, my answer was correct. I believe both G3 and A11 would apply since nothing called island of orkvanderland exists so its obviously made up by the creator and besides its also a blatant hoax, therefore I'm requesting your feedback. Antila333 (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Antilla333 So, A11 isn't far off the mark, but note that it explicitly says that it does not apply to hoax pages, and the note at WP:A11:
Unlike a hoax, subject to deletion as vandalism under CSD G3 as a bad faith attempt to deceive, CSD A11 is for topics that were or may have been actually created and are real, but have no notice or significance except among a small group of people, e.g. a newly invented drinking game or new word.
So, if I wrote a self-published novel, and started creating articles about the characters in the novel, or, if you decided to invent a new political ideology called humanophilosociologism, which was sourced only to your blog, those articles would be suitable for A11 - it's not that the concepts don't exist, it's that they have been invented by the author and nobody else has written about them. If the island was mentioned in the concept of a work of fiction that the author had written (e.g.: Orkvanderland is setting in the novel Battle for Orkvanderland, set in a fictional universe, off the coast of Australia), that might be eligible for A11 - but if the author is presenting it as an actual island that really exists, then it's a hoax, G3. Make sense? - I should have time to finish reviewing the answers later on today. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 07:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Antila333 spelled your name wrong AGAIN! GirthSummit (blether) 07:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, my answer was partly correct and one was incorrect, so think my score should be 98. Antila333 (talk) 09:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- How do you figure? The test wasn't out of 100. GirthSummit (blether) 10:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, my answer was partly correct and one was incorrect, so think my score should be 98. Antila333 (talk) 09:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Completion[edit]
Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy, on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction and graduation from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with 96%. Well done!
As a graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox, as well as the graduation message posted on your talk page (this can be treated the same as a barnstar).
{{User CVUA|graduate}}:
 | This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate. |