User:Girth Summit/CVUA/Hillelfrei

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

Make sure you read through Wikipedia:Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

How to use this page

This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.

The CVUA curriculum

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

Communication

Counter-vandalism work can result in very large watchlists, which can make it more difficult to monitor pages using that alone. For this reason, I will ping you whenever I update this page with some feedback or a new task; I would also ask you to ping me when you have completed a task, so that I get a notification telling me that it's ready for review. See WP:PING for details on how to do this if you aren't sure. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The start[edit]

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.

Girth Summit This is a key question, because the differentiation between vandalism and unconstructive, yet good faith edits, is imperative to ensure potential editors feel welcome to stay and ultimately contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive manner. I’m sure many users who are now experienced and accomplished editors first explored Wikipedia by trying to add some content to a page and seeing what happens. If these editors immediately got hit with intimidating warning and threats of a block, it would inevitably have caused them to get disheartened with the idea of staying and contributing seriously.

As WP:Vandalism states, vandalism is only an edit that is "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". As long as an editor believes their edit is helping Wikipedia and its goals, then no matter how unconstructive the edit is, it is not considered vandalism.

First of all, I would assume good faith almost any time a user makes their first edit. Even if a user’s first edit is adding random letters, blanking a page, or adding almost anything to an article, I would assume they are merely experimenting with this strange website they just stumbled upon, which for some reason allows anyone to edit it. I imagine a scenario in which I go to the New York Times’s website to look up something in the news, and there was an edit button on the top right of an article. I would certainly have a desire to see if I, some random person who knows nothing about journalism, actually have the ability to edit such a large and encompassing website. This very likely how newcomers feel when they come to Wikipedia. Their edits are only considered vandalism if they have clearly been shown how their edits are contrary to Wikipedia's goals, and they continue their actions in a deliberate attempt to disrupt the encyclopedia.

That being said, if a new user’s first edit is profanity, threats, racist material, adding facts which the user clearly knows are false, or anything other scenario in which the user without a doubt has ulterior intentions, I would consider it vandalism.

Now let’s talk about a more experienced user, perhaps an autoconfirmed or even extended confirmed user who has a reasonable amount of edits. Let’s say this user adds unsourced or unencyclopedic material, violates NPOV, or does everything wrong and then proceeds to revert the reverts to their edit. It is not vandalism because at the end of the day, this user believes that their edit is constructive; at the end of the day, this user has good faith. After all, "lack of understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia" is listed as one of the things which are not vandalism. This would require action to be taken, but that does not mean it is dubbed vandalism, at least at this point. I would only consider such behaviour to vandalism if someone has already communicated with this user and has shown why their edits are contrary to Wikipedia’s policies, and the editor subsequently continues their behaviour. In that case, the editor clearly understands that what they are doing is not constructive to Wikipedia, so they are intentionally disrupting Wikipedia, and that is considered vandalism. So in other words, the exact same edits can sometimes be vandalism and sometimes not be vandalism, depending on the user’s intentions. As for how I would tell them apart, I would check the article’s talk page and the user’s talk page, (and both of those page’s histories to see if the user deleted the discussion) and see if the user has been communicated with. I would then act accordingly. Hillelfrei ^{• talk •} 02:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed and well-considered response Hillelfrei - you are absolutely correct, it is all about intent. It's not easy to judge intent, especially with newbies - so, when there is any doubt, we assume good faith and act differently to how we would act in a case of real vandalism. Let's move on...

I am going to assume that you already know how to use the 'Recent changes' feed, and how to filter it to show edits which are likely to be bad faith - if not, let me know and I'll expand on that. If you're happy with that already, the next task is below.GirthSummit _(blether) 10:24, 3 May 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

Girth Summit

This is good faith

Yes - agree with your revert, your edit summary says it all, but not vandalism.

This is good faith

So, on the basis of this diff alone, I'd agree with your assessment. However, I came across some of the editor's other contributions that day, and satisfied myself that they were in fact vandalising, and blocked their account. This is a good illustration of how you often can't judge intention from a single edit - what one person might do in good faith, another might do because they're just messing about.

This is good faith

Agreed - unsourced and potentially defamatory, so absolutely right to revert, but not vandalism. I might refer back to this diff at a later point in the course when we're disussing WP:3RRNO, as it's quite a good example of the sort of thing that the BLP policy would allow you to revert unlimited times, and also when we are discussing REVDEL (which I have just applied to those diffs) - remind me to explain later. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This is vandalism. Obviously, this editor did not believe that blanking the lead and replacing it with "This website is unreliable. Don’t waste ur time" was helping Wikipedia.

} Yes - if I seen an edit summary along the lines of 'fixed it', I expect to find vandalism. This kind of thing is very common.

This is vandalism because a look at the editor's contribs shows that they have been editing on and off since 2017, and as such they certainly know the style of Wikipedia articles, and that means they knew that adding the words "yes yes yes frozen 2" in the lead of an article about a Disney song was not helpful to Wikipedia.

I agree that this is probably vandalism - it's hard to imagine anyone thinking that would improve the article. Remember though that even if the IP has a long history, you can't assume it's just one person. IPs are often not static, and even when they are, there could be more than one person with access to a computer.

This is vandalism because the editor very well knows that Jewish males in the concentration camp furnaces were in fact not the first iteration of the Pork rinds and furthermore, they added the name of a fake doctor who supposedly said that, plus they wrote "stated factual information" in their edit summary. This editor couldn't be farther from wanting to help the article in question.

Yuck. That's exceptionally offensive. I agree with your assessment of it being vandalism. Just for future reference, if I had come across that, I would have used a 4im warning template rather than a welcome template - don't worry though, that will come later in the course!

Hillelfrei ^{• talk •} 15:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Brilliant work Hillelfrei, I agree with all your assessments. More comments above; I'll post the next exercise soon. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hillelfrei Next section below. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:36, 4 May 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?

Warning in regards to vandalism is a general term for what is broken down to four levels of warnings. The purpose of the lower levels are to communicate to the vandal why their edits are unconstructive in the hope that the vandal simply did not realize the damage they were doing. Subsequent warnings are given in the hope that the vandal will realize that their edits are frustrating other editors and thereby be discouraged from persisting.

Warnings are also indirectly used as a tool to allow administrators to see if a vandal has been communicated with sufficiently to warrant a block.

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

A 4im warning should be given to an editor who performs many obvious bad faith edits in quick succession, or one obviously bad faith edit which is very severe or grotesque. A 4im warning does not have to be preceded by other warning templates; it can be used as a first and only warning in such situations (which is why you mentioned that I should have used it for my third example of vandalism in the previous question).

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!)

A warning template should always be substituted when placed on a user talk page. This will insert the text of the template into the article at the time you press publish. This is as opposed to transcluding the template, which will not insert the text, rather, the template itself will remain and so if the template is edited, the transclusion on the user page will be edited as well. Obviously, it would not make sense for a user to see warnings on their talk page changing, so we substitute warning templates rather than transcluding them.

Substitution is a simple process. Instead of inserting {{uw-vandalism1|PageName}}, add the text “subst:” first, making it {{subst:uw-vandalism1|PageName}}.

I almost always use Twinkle to add templates to pages, and so rarely need to manually substitute them. Do try to remember this if you ever do end up needing to put a template on a page manually - very strange things happen if you fail to substitute!

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

Because level 4 is the user’s final warning, vandalism prior to that point means that the editor should be reported to AIV.

@Girth Summit: Hillelfrei ^{• talk •} 14:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Great answers Hillelfrei. See below... GirthSummit _(blether) 14:34, 4 May 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. @Girth Summit:

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff	Trainer's Comment
1	Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3	User blanked sections of articles multiple times following their final warning. (Marked first rv as good faith because I only saw their warnings after) Reported to AIV	Y Yes - a strange set of blankings. Hard to determine motive, since they're not communicating and the blankings seemed to be selective, but it's disruptive nonetheless if they're not willing to explain what they're doing and discuss it.
2	Diff	Racist edit clearly not intended to help the article	Y Yes, highly offensive.
3	Diff	User was randomly changing words and names in the article after warnings and persisted editing following final warning. Reported to AIV	Y Yes, silly vandalism.
4	Diff	User added the words, “Instant Noodle” and “Instant Noodle Plus” to the article, explaining in his edit summary that these names are “code names for Oneplus 8 and Oneplus 8 pro”. A quick Google search showed me that this is false. Clear vandalism - if this was a mere test edit, he would not have written a misleading edit summary.	Y Perhaps the editor, or one of his friends, owns one of these cases for their phone? Anyway, yes, it looks like silly vandalism.
5	Diff	If this editor wanted to test edit they would not have added defamatory content to this BLP. They intended to harm the encyclopedia.	Y Yes, silly vandalism, and a BLP violation to boot.
6	Diff	If this editor wanted to test edit they would not have added defamatory content to this BLP. They intended to harm the encyclopedia.	Y Definitely.
7	Diff	If this editor wanted to test edit they would not have added defamatory content to this BLP, and they most certainly would not have included racist content such as "In South Africa however black pilots have an extremely high level of arrogance". They intended to harm the encyclopedia.	Y Wow. Unsourced, subjective and racist commentary in article space - revert on sight.
8	Diff	If this editor wanted to test edit, they would not have started by changing the description of this “doctor” to “terrorist”. They intended to harm the encyclopedia.	Y Yes.
9	Diff	If this editor wanted to test edit, they would not have replaced sourced content with defamatory content (and kept the previous source as the supposed citation for their added content). They intended to harm the encyclopedia.	Y
10	Diff	If this editor wanted to test edit, they would not have started by changing the description of this “forecaster” to “scam artists”. This defamatory content was intended to harm the encyclopedia.	Hmm. I'm not so sure about this one. According to the article, the subject did spend over a decade in prison for financial crimes - one could perhaps argue that being a scam artist is a large part of what they are known for. I agree with the revert - that's certainly not the kind of language we would use in an article, but I can't put my hand on my heart and say it's clear-cut vandalism - I'd have reverted that with an explanatory edit summary explaining.

Hillelfrei ^{• talk •} 21:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

OK Hillelfrei - that was a good batch of examples, I think we're ready to move on. Please see the next section below. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion[edit]

Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only an administrator can protect or delete pages; however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion or request protection. You can use the Twinkle menu to request page protection or speedy deletion (the RPP or CSD options).

Protection[edit]

Please read the protection policy.

@Girth Summit:

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?: Semi-protection is appropriate when a page is subject to constant vandalism. It resolves the issue by requiring editors to be autoconfirmed and registered accounts (this solves the issue because the vast majority of vandalism is from unregistered/non-autoconfirmed users).

This protection is also often given to BLPs which are not vandalized constantly, but which are vandalized every so often, because editors may not notice the vandalism until hours later, and this prevents BLP violations. This is the case at Justin Bieber.

The only thing missing from this is that the disruption needs to be coming from multiple new users/IP addresses. If we can solve the problem by blocking an account or an IP range, that's preferred over protecting the page.

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

Pending changes protection is a lower version of semi-protection. It is used in a similar fashion but for lesser frequency or severity of the vandalism.

Yes, this is for pages that get a lower volume of vandalism. It's better because it keeps to page open for IPs/new accounts to contribute to, but it comes with overhead costs because experienced editors need to check and approve the changes, so we don't use it for heavily vandalised pages.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?: Full protection is uncommon. It is used to resolve edit warring and content disputes, for example, Joe Biden was recently fully protected because of a content dispute about his sexual assault allegations.

It is used for generic file names such as File:Photo.jpg to prevent people from uploading files with that name, which is not specific enough.

In cases of extremely high-scale vandalism, it is used. This is very rare because lower levels of protection are usually enough to stop vandalism. Even when it comes to the BLPs which are most likely to be vandalized, extended-confirmed protection is usually sufficient. For example, Donald Trump, during election time when he was under the spotlight the most, was fully protected due to the extreme scale of the vandalism to his article, but only for a couple of days at a time. Now, extended-confirmed protection is sufficient for the article.

Lastly, an article is fully protected if it is going through a deletion review so that editors can view the article and its history, but not alter it.

A very comprehensive answer - goes to show that one should re-read policy pages from time to time, I'd forgotten it could be used during a deletion review. In my experience, it's most commonly applied when there is an edit war going on between established accounts, to force them to thrash out their differences on the talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Creation protection should be used if an article should not be on Wikipedia, but the article is often created and subsequently deleted.

Yes - this is quite common when someone keeps trying to promote a non-notable business/singer/whatever. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?: If an article talk page is severely vandalized, it is semi-protected. It should not be protected more than that, because the whole point of a talk page is to talk about the article in question, because Wikipedia runs on consensus. Fully protecting a talk page would go against that whole concept.

A user talk page should only be protected as needed due to persistent vandalism. During the duration of the protection, an unprotected sub-page must be linked on the talk page so new editors can communicate with the editor. Materialscientist, being such a large-scale contributor with over 1 million edits, has one of the most vandalized talk pages, has had their talk page protected by either themself or another admin countless times.

Yes - this only happens in very severe cases (your average vandal isn't usually very interested in targeting talk pages, since regular readers don't see them). User talk pages can be protected if someone is repeatedly targeted for harassment - this happens to a lot of counter vandalism editors, I've had mine targeted a few times, but it's never been frequent enough for me to want to protect it.

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).

Requested Steve-O for semi-protection on RPP (Steve-O) due to a persistent flow of vandalism and BLP violations for the past couple of years. Hillelfrei ^talk 17:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep - and I see it was accepted, for quite a long period.

Good work on these Hillelfrei - again, very detailed and comprehensive answers. The next section is below... GirthSummit _(blether) 09:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

A page should be speedy deleted when there is no chance it will survive after a deletion discussion to save the hassle of a pointless process. It can only be done if the deletion is clearly uncontroversial. (If the question was asking me to summarize all the specific criteria, please clarify and I will do so) Hillelfrei ^talk 17:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm happy with a summary like that. You're right - a speedy deletion nomination saves the time and hassle of a deletion discussion when it is blatantly obvious that the page needs to be deleted. Do read the criteria to give yourself an idea of when they can be applied, but remember that the criteria need to be clearly met for the tag to be accepted. Let's look at some examples... GirthSummit _(blether) 15:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion examples[edit]

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

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.

Speedy deletion per A7 - the article does not indicate why the subject is notable.
N Strangely, I can't agree with you on this one. If John Smith genuinely was the worst elementary school teacher on the planet, that would definitely probably be a claim of significance (see WP:SIGNIF) that would invalidate an A7 nomination. No, this is a G10 - it's an attack page. G10s are arguably the most important type of CSD, and they are handled very quickly - there is a thing called the Admin Dashboard, which lets admins see all the stuff that needs admin attention, like AIV reports, CSD nominations, unblock requests and the like. At the very top, in a category all of its own, is G10 nominations. We don't host articles that disparage their subject.

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.

Speedy deletion per G11 - unambiguous advertising or promotion. Report to AIV for a block as per WP:PROMONAME (username + promotional activity).

This is a G11, but note that this would be a UAA, rather than an AIV, report. Actually though, if you use Twinkle to select the 'Promotional userpage under a promotional username' option, you don't need to bother with the UAA report - the deleting admin ought to block the account as well as deleting the page.

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.

Doesn't quality for A7 because the article does include a claim of significance, albeit an insufficient one. Start discussion at AFD for non-notable.

I can't fault you for being cautious, and A7 is probably the most subjective of the CSD criteria. However, for me, starring in school plays, publishing albums on a self-publishing music site, and having a few thousand subs on YouTube, are not credible claims of significance - I'd delete this as an A7. However - when I went through this course, I gave the same answer as you did - perhaps I've become more jaded in the intervening time!

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.)

A Google search confirmed that this person does indeed exist, but he is non-notable. Speedy deletion per A7 - the article does not indicate why the subject is notable.

OK, so to be honest, I think that a lot of admins would accept your A7 and delete. However, one could argue that being a Hall of Fame roadie is a credible claim of significance - remember, notability is not the same as a credible claim of significance (again - see WP:SIGNIF). You might think about nominating to AfD as non-notable, but we should talk about alternatives to deletion. Wikipedia has an article on The Nice, which mentions Bazz Ward. The best thing to do in a situation like this would be to set up a WP:REDIRECT - so that anyone searching for Bazz Ward at least gets taken to an article that has some information about him.

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?

Yes. Content on Wikipedia cannot be all rights reserved per WP:COPYRIGHT. Both qualify for speedy deletion per G12 for unambiguous copyright infringement.

Correct - we assume copyright, even if it isn't asserted on the website. Even if material is in the public domain, it usually requires appropriate attribution - if in doubt, tag it and let the assessing admin make the determination. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 6

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

If the article contains the same content as another language's Wikipedia article on the topic, speedy deletion per A2. Otherwise, tag article with {{Not English}}.

Yep.

Scenario 7

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

Speedy deletion per G7 for someone blanking their own article.

Yep

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 this user is contributing constructively, I don't see a problem with such a userpage. A mainspace article would qualify for speedy deletion per G3 for blatant vandalism. Hillelfrei ^talk 16:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

So, it's not a G3 exactly, it's more like a G1 - gibberish. G1 contains an exception for user pages though, so you're right - if it's in userspace, leave them to it. If an editor wants nonsense on their user page, that's their choice, provided it's not offensive.

Good work on the above Hillelfrei - don't be disparaged by making a couple of mistakes, CSDs are kind of difficult ground and this is a learning experience. Let me know if you have any questions, otherwise we'll move on tomorrow. I have to say, you're doing really well with your considered answers! GirthSummit _(blether) 19:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Next section below. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Just came across this. Is a draft included in CSD? Hillelfrei ^talk 16:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Just found the answer at Wikipedia:Drafts#Deleting a draft Hillelfrei ^talk 16:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hillelfrei Glad you found your answer - that was a good question though. I edit conflicted with you when I tried to answer it - here's what I was going to say...

Some CSDs can be applied to drafts - anything starting with a G is a general-use tag, which can be put on a draft. I often use G3, G10, G11 and G12 on drafts. You can't use anything starting with an A outside article space however - this looks like an A7 to me, which can't be applied to a draft. (Similarly, stuff starting with a U can only be applied to pages in user space.) I think I'll add something about this to the course actually, I ought to explain it better. Cheers! GirthSummit _(blether) 16:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Thanks - good idea adding it to the course because many drafts fit only A criteria so it comes up often. I left the creator of the draft I linked a note explaining notability and such. Hillelfrei ^talk 16:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Revision Deletion and Oversight[edit]

Please read WP:Revdel and WP:Oversight.

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

If you believe an edit needs to be revision deleted, how would you request that?: Revision deletion can be requested by contacting any admin, but ideally one in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests, or by posting the request on #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect where only admins will be able to see it.

If you believe that it's so serious it needs oversight, how would you request that?: I would email the oversight team here.

@Girth Summit: Hillelfrei ^talk 16:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

All correct, by the book. I'm going to take the liberty of offering you my unofficial advice on requesting revdel: use IRC. We're advised not to put a request on AN/ANI because of the number of people who watch it and the Streisand Effect; unfortunately, most admins talk pages also have plenty of watchers, so it's not as bad as ANI, but it still broadcasts the diff fairly widely. Nine times out of ten, a report on IRC will result in a revdel within a couple of minutes. You can also request oversight there, you log in and type !oversight - if any oversighters are logged in, they will reply and ask you to private message them (if you don't know how to do that, reply asking them to private message you). It's usually faster than using the e-mail list - and when you want oversight, you usually want it quickly.

If in doubt about whether something needs revdel, my advice is to report it, but phrase the report as a question. 'Does this need revdel?' comes up a lot on IRC, and most admins will be willing to give you honest guidance. Over time, you'll build a picture of what generally does, and does not, require it.

Moving on them... GirthSummit _(blether) 18:24, 14 May 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?: An email should be sent to WMF Emergency, either internally at Special:EmailUser/Emergency or externally at emergencywikimedia.org. Include the relevant details about the emergency along as the link to the page or the diff of the edit requiring emergency attention.

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)?

If it is possible the edit is a threat of harm, contact the emergency team anyway and let them judge what it is. @Girth Summit: Hillelfrei ^talk 18:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Moving on... GirthSummit _(blether) 18:54, 14 May 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.: The rollback button may be used to remove all of a user's edits to an article if they are all obvious vandalism. It is also used to revert edits by blocked or banned users or by misguided editors causing mass damage. Lastly, it can be used to revert one's own edits or edits to their own user pages.

Hopefully this will never happen, but it does occasionally. If you accidentally use rollback, what should you do?: Undo the rollback by pressing "undo" and write something like "accidental rollback".

If you used rollback for an edit that was unconstructive but not vandalism, make another edit or a dummy edit to write your ommited edit summary.

Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?: No because rollback is a one-click thing, it does not allow one to leave an edit summary (unless they have extra user scripts installed).

Instead, one should use twinkle's rollback feature to rollback with an edit summary. @Girth Summit: Hillelfrei ^talk 22:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep - this is all correct Hillelfrei. Personally, I very rarely use proper Rollback - Twinkle red rollback essentially does the same thing. The most useful thing about having the permission is that it allows you to use Stiki and Huggle - if you're interested in exploring them, let me know and I can talk you through them, but they aren't technically part of this course. If you apply for Rollback, ping me from your application and I will add a note of support. Technically I could enable it myself, but I prefer to let another admin review my students' applications, just to avoid giving the impression of taking an admin action when involved.

This was the final section in the course - the only thing that remains is the final exam, which I have no doubt you will pass with ease. Let me know if you want to go straight into that, or if you want to play with Stiki and Huggle for a bit first. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Sounds good. If you could show me a bit about Huggle and Stiki that would be great. Hillelfrei ^talk 16:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

OK - so, first make your rollback application, since you need that flag to access the software. I'd advise you to try Stiki first - they are quite similar applications, but Huggle is real-time and quite fast paced, whereas Stiki looks at old diffs so you have plenty of time to make your decisions. Ping me from your application, cheers. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, that was quick! OK - download and install Stiki. Read the information at WP:Stiki, but here's a quick description from my perspective as a user.

Stiki is a diff browser (so is Huggle). It presents you with diffs one at a time, which have been flagged as possible bad faith - as if had clicked on the 'Recent Changes' feed and opened the first diff at the top of the queue. However, it has a long memory - these are things that tripped a filter, but weren't picked up at the time. Most of them will be harmless; some of them will be good faith but unsourced, test edits, and the like; some of them will be vandalism. Your job is to assess the diff, and mark it either as 'Innocent' (which will take it out of the queue); 'Good faith revert' (which lets you choose a warning template to use); Vandalism (which reverts and automatically puts an appropriately escalated template in place); or 'Pass', which is basically 'I don't know' - it takes no action, but leaves the diff in the queue for someone else to assess later. ::::You can choose from one of two queues to work from - the ClueBot queue, or Stiki's own one. My advice is to use ClueBot's - it seems to be better at picking up vandalism - but that's just my experience, I don't have any stats to back that up.

Give it a whirl and let me know how you get on - drop any questions about it below here.

A note on Huggle - it's similar to Stiki, but it works in real time - you're not working on a queue, you're reviewing edits as they are made. It's super-effective, but it's also quite pressured - at any given time, there will be a bunch of other Hugglers reviewing the same diffs, and so you find that if you take time to assess the diff properly, someone else might revert it before you're finished. That can lead some people to make rushed decisions, and start reverting inappropriately, which is never a good look. I'd urge you to use Stiki for a bit, get used to that, and then give Huggle a try later on. Your call, naturally - you've got Rollback now, and are fully qualified to use either, but I always advise my students to start out on Stiki.

Hope that's helpful - pop any questions below this and I'll try to address them. Congrats on getting Rollback, it's well-deserved. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: That's very helpful, thank you. I tried downloading Stiki. I got the .jar file, but there are no apps on my computer to open a .jar file. Do you know what I can use? Also, I tried out Huggle and I see exactly what you mean, but it looks like it has the potential to be very effective as long as you're careful. Hillelfrei ^talk 19:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, @Girth Summit: how can I set it on Huggle so it doesn't add every page to my Watchlist? Hillelfrei ^talk 21:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. I believe the .jar file needs to have some Java component installed on your PC - I went over to the Stiki talk page to ask the developer how to remind me what you need to do this, but it looks like bad news. From some discussions ongoing there, it appears that the developer hasn't edited for a couple of months, and Stiki isn't currently working properly; there's probably no point pursuing this at the moment. (I just tried it myself, and it was indeed acting a bit strangely - all the diffs it presented me with were very old indeed, looks like there's a bug stopping the queue from updating or something). That's a shame, it's a great tool, but I'm not able to fix it.

You can change your preferences for watchlisting in Huggle by clicking on the 'System' menu, selecting 'Options', going to the 'Warnings' tab, and changing the option selected in the 'Preference for watchlisting...' drop down menu - sounds like you want to select 'Do nothing'.

By the way, I have no idea why they were reading this page, but a former student of mine pointed out to me that I skipped a small section of the course - don't know how I managed to miss that, but see below... GirthSummit _(blether) 11:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:I've been using Huggle, do you think you could take a quick look at my contribs and let me know if I'm doing it right? I think it's pretty straightforward, but with all the warnings I have been given about the danger of the tool, I want to make sure I'm in the clear. Also, just wondering, does Huggle include present every single edit to Wikipedia or only certain edits based on some sort of mechanism? Hillelfrei ^talk 15:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

So, I had a quick run through and did some spot checking. I got sidetracked because there was some particularly nasty stuff in there by a particular user - I blocked and revdelled pretty much all of their contribs, don't know whether you already requested that somewhere? Anything that looks like it might be giving out personal information about another user should be reported. What a pleasant person they seemed to be. Anyway, a bit more spot checking, nothing about what you are doing jumped out to me as problematic. Be aware that you can use shortcut keys to issue warnings other than vandalism - you can learn to get familiar with the keys for test edits, revert (unsourced), that kind of thing. As for the queue it presents you with - I know that some accounts are whitelisted, so you should never see anything by me in the Huggle queue :') I'm not an expert on the rest of it though - certainly it presents you with more than the 'recent changes' feed filtered to show 'likely bad faith', but I've never looked into exactly how something ends up in the Huggle queue. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: The user you mention was already reported at AIV. They were smart - only attacking non-admins so all we could do is report, not block ourselves. I was actually on wmflabs Recently Active Admins tool about to reach out to an online admin when you blocked and revdelled, so thanks. I will definitely look into keyboard shortcuts. I think we're ready for the final exam, let me know how you want to proceed. Hillelfrei ^talk 16:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hillelfrei OK, that makes sense. Yeah, that was nasty - even though I've revdelled, I sent an e-mail to the oversight team asking them to fully suppress those diffs, and I believe there's a checkuser looking into the account now. I'll put the exam up tomorrow, cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:54, 17 May 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?

We deny recognition to trolls and vandals because that is the most effective way to stop them from continuing. Expressing anger and frustration will only fuel them to continue, and ignoring them will quickly make their vandalism/trolling boring and pointless and they will quickly cease their damaging actions.

Yep - it's often attention that they're looking for. Yelling at them or arguing with them gives them what they want. Reverting, giving them an obviously automated template, and ultimately blocking them as necessary, gives them none of the attention they're looking for.

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.): A good faith user asking why I reverted their edit will appear to understand/acknowledge what I tell them. They might ask for clarification, but they will appear to accept the clarification.

A troll will never be appeased, they will keep going back and forth with me. They might add in some name-calling like this user who claimed I "eat wieners with my butt" when I reverted their unconstructive edit (diff), but this is not necessary to dub them a troll, they may just try to receive as much attention as possible from me and fellow vandalism fighters even in a non-offensive way. Hillelfrei ^talk 02:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Eat wieners with your butt?? Charming! Yes, that person was clearly trolling. The main thing to recognise is that people don't like being reverted, and good faith users often get angry if they're accused of vandalism. They may come to your talk page in a bad mood, and say rude things. The best thing to do in that situation is check the edit you reverted, think about whether you might genuinely have been mistaken and, if you decide it might have been good faith, apologise quickly and profusely, and offer to self-revert if necessary, even if they have been rude. I always cringe when I see patrollers say something like 'I revert hundreds of edits per day, of course I'm going to make a few mistakes' - the other person doesn't care how many vandals you revert, you also reverted them, and they're not a vandal - that's what they're pissed about. It happens to all of us occasionally - when it does, don't try to justify or excuse it, just apologise. They usually calm down and go away. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hillelfrei - exam questions below, good luck! GirthSummit _(blether) 13:58, 18 May 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?
The first time, I would assume good faith. I would revert with the AGF option on TW and send them a “welcome-unconstructive” message using TW. The second time, it probably isn’t good faith, but I wouldn’t call it vandalism. I would revert with the middle rollback option on TW and send them a level 2 notice for test editing. The third time, I would rollback the edit and send them a level 3 vandalism warning. The fourth time, I would rollback the edit and send them a level 4 warning. The fifth time, I would report to AIV.
Y
A user inserts '###################################' into an article, having never edited before. Would you treat it differently if they had done the same thing once before?
The first time, I would assume good faith, revert with the AGF option on TW, and send them a “welcome-unconstructive” message using TW. If they had done it before and do it again despite attempts at communication with them, I would consider it disruptive editing, warn as such and if they persist, report to AIV.
Y
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?
The first time I would assume good faith, revert the edit, and send a level 1 notice for unexplained content removal using TW. If they continue removing content without an edit summary after that, I would consider it vandalism, warn and eventually report.
Y
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?
The next time they did that I would leave a level 2 disruptive editing notice using TW, and in the additional comments section explain the reason for the message. After that, I would give them a level 3 warning, then a level 4 warning, then report to AIV.
Y
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?
If the user has a history of disruptive contributions, they would probably already have warning templates on their talk page. I would give them a “unexplained removal of content” warning according to the level that they are up to and in the additional comments section, explain that they have to be more specific as to why they remove sourced content. I would report when they pass level 4. However, if the user has a history of positive contributions, I would ask them about it on their talk page. This is because I would assume that there is a valid reason they removed the content due to their track record. (And I wouldn’t want to template a regular either way.)
Y So, this approach would be correct 90% of the time. However, what you haven't mentioned is checking the information, and the source. Does the source actually support the assertions? Is it reliable? What sometimes happens is the subject of an article, or someone connected to them, comes across the article and realises that it has smears or spiteful gossip in it. They don't know much about editing Wikipedia, so they remove it without logging in or leaving an edit summary. They are right to do so, and we should be thanking them rather than warning them - patrollers need to be aware of this possibility, it's not an everyday occurrence but it happens quite often. So, if you see someone removing content from a BLP, always check the content and the sourcing before adding it back in - you might accidentally be adding improperly sourced defamatory information yourself if you blindly revert.

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}}
Y
A user blanks a section of Cricket without giving an explanation.
{{uw-delete1}}
Y
A user adds random characters to Aardvark.
{{uw-test1}}
Y
A user adds 'Donald is the best!' to United States.
{{uw-nor1}}
Y I was thinking POV, but I guess NOR would work as well.
A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Donald Trump.
{{uw-attempt1}}
Y
A user puts "I HATE CHEESE!" on Edam (cheese).
{{uw-nor1}}
Y Again - I was thinking vandalism, but you're right, this is also OR!
A user adds 'and he was seen dropping litter in Hyde Park' to Hugh Grant.
{{uw-defamatory1}}
Y
A new user adds curse words to your user page (this is their first edit).
{{uw-upv}}
Y
A user blanks Dell, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
{{uw-delete4im}}
Y
A user blanks Dell, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
Do not communicate - report to AIV
Y

Part 3[edit]

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

Tim Spinks is the fastest runner in Park Grove School, and won the house cup three years running.
None. Start a deletion discussion.
Y It's never wrong to be cautious, but I think this would be an uncontroversial A7 - being the fastest runner in a town or county might be a credible claim to significance (but it would still be an unsourced BLP, so BLP-PROD would be an option), but the fastest runner in a school? No, that's not significant.
NCPP Delivery gives fast, efficient delivery service - go to npcc.com for more info!
G11
Y
Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
A1
Y
The Island of Orkvanderland is an island three hundred miles off the coast of Western Australia, inhabited by orks.
G3
Y
Terry is the a great singer.
A1
Y
Fuck all you assholes!
G10
Y

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
Don't see a problem
Y It's plural - it might imply shared use. I'd check their contribs - they might be writing about a band of that name - if they are, a UAA report would be warranted. If they were editing normally, then I agree, no problem.
Poopsniffer
Discouraged per WP:DISRUPTNAME, communicate with user with {{Uw-username}}
Y Agree - this isn't really bad enough to report to UAA, but you could start a discussion with them about it, it's a bit rude.
StopVandalBot
Inappropriate per WP:MISLEADNAME, report to UAA
Y
Joshtheadmin
Inappropriate per WP:MISLEADNAME, report to UAA
Y
poiuytrewassdfhukjhgffghjghhkhgfhdrhjjv9876543
Discouraged per WP:UNCONF, communicate with user with {{Uw-username}}
Y
GeoffBarnes
If it is not Geoff Barnes, violation of WP:MISLEADNAME. I would report to UAA. (To be honest I don’t understand how an admin would determine whether or not this is really Geoff Barnes)
N So, the only Geoff Barnes we have an article on is a fictional character from a UK soap opera. It's not against policy to have a username that represents a fictional character (otherwise I can think of a few admins, and one Arbcom member, who I'd have to block!), so there's no problem here. To answer your question about how we determine whether someone really is who they clam to be when there is the possibility of impersonation, what we do is block the account as a precaution, and invite the user to e-mail the OTRS team with evidence to prove who they are - they then get an OTRS banner on their userpage to let other users know that their identity has been confirmed.
JeffBridgesFan
Don't see a problem
Y Correct - no problem there.

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)?
If it is obvious, yes per WP:3RRNO. If it anything less than completely obvious, no.
Y Yes - make sure that you are strictly within the criteria of 3RRNO - don't repeatedly revert potentially good faith additions, even if they're wrong.
Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
WP:AIV by posting * {{vandal|Username}} Reason ~~~~ or * {{IPvandal|IP address}} Reason ~~~~
Y
Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
WP:ANI making sure to link to the editor with {{userlinks|Example}} and notifying them of the report with {{ANI-notice}}
Y
Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
WP:UAA by posting *{{user-uaa|1=Example}} – Reason ~~~~
Y
Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
WP:ANI making sure to link to the editor with {{userlinks|Example}} and notifying them of the report with {{ANI-notice}}
Y
Where and how should an edit war be reported?
WP:AN3 using the “Click here to create a new report” button
Y
Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
WP:BLPN using the "create report" button
Y

Completion[edit]

Congratulations Hillelfrei, 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 93%. Well done!

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

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.

GirthSummit _(blether) 07:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Thanks so much for taking the time to do this, it was really helpful. Hillelfrei ^talk 14:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome Hillelfrei - thank you for volunteering to clean up nonsense of the site! If you ever come across a situation when you're not sure what to do, feel free to drop me a note and I'll help if I can. Happy patrolling! GirthSummit _(blether) 14:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Question[edit]

@Girth Summit: What do I do when I see something like this? Second such scenario I have seen today and I have no idea what to do. Hillelfrei ^talk 17:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hillelfrei I'm about to log off, but briefly - check the source - is it reliable, does it support the assertion? If the answer to both of those is 'yes', then the next question is whether the inclusion is DUE. One option would be to start a thread at BLPN and see what other editors think. I'll try to look at it tomorrow - there's no rush with things like this, it doesn't matter if the information is removed from the page temporarily - better to be cautious. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: The claim is reliably sourced and certainly WP:Due, I think. I can start a BLPN post, but my question was more is there a policy to deal with such cases where something is cited and due but reflects negatively on the individual or family and they request it be removed? Either way, I'll leave this until tomorrow. Have a good night, Hillelfrei ^talk 18:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hillelfrei (Checked back in briefly!) Read WP:BLP closely, especially the section on 'Presumption in favor of privacy' - that's where your answer lies. Basically, we err on the side of caution, but if reliable secondary sources report on an aspect of someone's life, and there are reasonable grounds for it to be included in an article with regard to DUE, then it should be included in the article; the wishes of the subject or their family aren't a relevant factor in making that determination. Personally, I would find the wishes of the people involved a relevant factor in making me decide whether or not I want to invest time in the issue - if someone is genuinely upset that certain content is in an article, I would be happy to try to think of grounds for removing it - but in the end, our decisions about content are grounded in our policies and the consensus of the community, not in the wishes of interested parties. Let's look at it tomorrow and decide what to do. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hillelfrei As you will have seen, I started a thread at BLPN. I'm not decided about whether the content is due - after all, the band split up ten years before any of this happened. If the article was about McVittie himself then it would be unquestionable, but it's about the band - I'm not sure that it's relevant. Feel free to give your views at the thread, and we'll see what others make of it. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I just looked at the post. Seeing how you posted it is helpful to know what to do in the future. I see that WP:Due means the entire picture - the fact that the article is about the band, not him as an individual, is a relevant factor, and so is the timeline of the incident compared to the date in which the band split up. Thanks as always for the info, Hillelfrei ^talk 12:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Jack Buckby[edit]

Hi Girth Summit. I hope you're doing well. I kind of feel bad badgering you with all my questions, so feel free to answer this if and when you have a free moment. Yesterday, I noticed an edit war on Jack Buckby. I sent all the involved editors warnings for edit warring, and one of the editors, Rosswikieditor, sent me a message asking how he could come work out a conclusion. I pointed them towards BLPN. They started a post here and argued it out with a couple of uninvolved editors for a while without reaching any sort of agreement. They then sent me this - the message on the bottom. I don't know how to answer - the debate seems to be at a stalemate. Is there a next step? How do these things usually end? Thanks, Hillelfrei ^talk 23:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I just replied - pretty sure I said the right thing, but let me know if I made a mistake. Hillelfrei ^talk 23:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Going to BLPN was a good suggestion. I see David Gerard is involved, he's very experienced (and an admin) so I expect it's in safe hands. The long-and-short of it is that we can't use stuff someone has published about themselves to describe them like that editor wants to - at most, we could say something along the lines of 'Jack Buckby has said that he is no longer aligned with the alt right' - we can't make an assertion of fact that he is not aligned with the alt right until a reliable secondary source does so. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)