Hello Asartea, 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. Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 10:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

Good faith edits are edits made with the intent to help the wiki grow. While good faith edits won't necessarily adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and might even need to be reverted, their ultimate intent was good. Makers of bad good faith edits will usually after a brief explanation of the related policies and Guidelines develop into contributors to the wiki.

Vandalism edits are edits made for the express purpose of harming Wikipedia just because the editor can. While the exact reasons may differ at their hart they're meant to disrupt or hinder Wikipedia

When deciding if a edit is vandalism or just a misguided good faith edit I will look at multiple things. The first and main indicator to me is the edit itself. Edits which just add in slurs, swears and defamatory content or remove huge parts of a page for no good reason (such as removing the entire history section of Fish and chips) will almost always be vandalism. While small errors such as correcting a single sentence to bad English or adding non notable content to a page will probably be an bad good faith edit. The second indicator I look at is the edit summary. Edits which delete chunks of pages but have as edit summary Typo are often vandalism. Thirdly I also take a look at the history of the page and at the users talk page. If I find lost of edits by this user all of which have been reverted as vandalism, the chance of this edit also being vandalism is greater. In a similar way if I find tens or hundreds of warnings on the users talk page I will also look closer at the edit.

@Synoman Barris: Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Asartea Y Very good, the difference to remember between Good faith and vandalism is the intent behind the edit - if it’s intended to harm Wikipedia, its vandalism, otherwise, always AGF. Next task below Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 21:15, 23 September 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:

[1]

Y blanking without proper explanation rationale

[2]

Y Yep, pure vandalism

[3]

Y Although blanking is usually taken as vandalism, you should always consider the following factors:

• Has the user provided an explaination on the talk page or edit summary
• Is the blanking appropriate?Check carefully if the section that was removed may have been purely sources, if so the edit was made in good faith and may not involve an immediate revert without proper explanation.

Good Faith:

[4]

Y

[5]

Y

[6]

Y Edits were vandalism since it was meant to be disruptive. The editor must’ve known that this is the English Wikipedia

Synoman Barris Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 05:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Asartea:Good job overall, see comments above and next section below Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 23:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully you'll have noticed that Twinkle allows you three options for performing a rollback - green, blue, and red links (see the screenshot). All three will revert all of the most recent consecutive edits made by a single user to a page.

Try to use these buttons where possible. The green and the blue ones allow you to add an edit summary - it's described as 'optional', but you should not treat it as such - always leave a brief edit summary, even if it's just 'Rv test edit', or 'Rv unexplained removal of content', or whatever. Use the green one when you think it's a good faith mistake, and the blue one when you're not sure. Only use the red one when you are certain that it is unambiguous vandalism - it saves time, because it leaves a generic edit summary, and all of them will take you directly to the talk page of the person you have reverted, to allow you to use the 'Warn' option to give them a warning. (Also note that you can use the brown "restore this version" button when you need to revert edits by multiple users.)

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?

So that they can be notified that one of their edits was considered a bad edit and read the relevant guidelines before making one again. This ensures we don't have to block people who just didn't know the guidelines and didn't see that one of their edits was removed.

Y Yep, that is the core reason. Warnings are also issued so that the next patroller who comes across the user’s edits is aware that this user had been warned.

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

In case of either gross/extreme disruption or continuous disruption by an user who already received lower level warning templates in the past.

Y 4im warnings are meant to be the only warning a user is issued. This is done when the users edits consists of offensive/gross BLP violations like racial comments and sexual tags go straight to 4im

Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it? (Hint - read the link before answering!)

Yes, this ensures that the text of the template at that time remains on the page instead of a direct call to the template. Substition is done by placing {{subst:template name}} on the page instead of just {{template name}}.

Twinkle does this automatically for you, but when you do it manually remember to substitute, The “nowiki”tags are not necessary just do it in this format {{subst:uw-test1}}

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

Leave a message at WP:AVI so that an admin can consider blocking that user.

Y Yep

Synoman Barris Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 04:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Asartea Good work! Next section below Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 09:05, 26 September 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	[7]	Level two deletion warning given, based on both earlier warning and size of removal	Y Obvious vandalism
2	[8]	Level one warning given	Y Good catch
3	[9]	Level 1 defamatory warning given. Might also have been worthy of a level two but since it was the first edit I used a 1 instead.	Y
4	[10]	Level 1 deletion warning given.	Y
5	[11]	Same user as 4, 2 warning given.	Y
6	[12]	Level 1 warning given.	Y
7	[13]	Same user as 3, level two warning given	Y
8	[14]	Level 3 warning given	Y
9	[15]	Level two warning given	Y
10	[16]	Level two warning given. Same kind of edit as 2, becuase of continuous vandalism I also requested temporary page protection	Y

@Synoman Barris: Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Asartea Good work above, next section below Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 11:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

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).

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

Permanent semi protection should only be applied when a page has been heavily and consistently vandalized or after violations of Wikipedia's content policy. Pages may be temporarily semi protected when an article is subject to intense temporary vandalism, pages which are vandalized by an Ip editor who constantly changes addresses

Y

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

In roughly the same circumstances as semi-protection except on articles with a very high edit rate.

Y

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

If its a vitally important page to Wikipedia as a whole (ie Main page although that one is currently fully protected thanks to cascade protection), if a page is subject to intense edit warring by registered/autoconfirmed users in which case semi-protection wouldn't work.

Y Yep, but FP is mainly applied when established users have a content dispute and are edit warring over it. It will only be removed once the dispute is resolved.

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

If its an bad article which has been recreated multiple times.

Y

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

If it has been subject to heavy vandalism or disruptive edits.

Y but only temporarily, in the case of user talk pages there is an exception from the recent WP:ANI discussion

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).

@Synoman Barris:. Done except the last question. I'm however going to cheat and include these two links here: [17] [18] Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Asartea Excellent work,you can do that question later. We’ll continue with the course and when you find a page that you have filed at WP:RFP, fill in the section and ping me Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 16:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Well those links were me doing that last weekend Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

When it and all of its revisions fit under one or more of the criteria defined at WP:CSD.

@Synoman Barris: Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Asartea Fair enough I hope you’ve understood all relevant policies on SD mostly A7, G5, G11, G13 e.t.c. A question before we proceed, an editor created an article about his high school and clearly per WP:NCORP the high school is not notable which criteria of speedy deletion does it fall under? Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 19:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Synoman Barris:, None as far I can see. Schools are specifically exempt from A7 which normally covers lack of notability and they don't fall under A9 either. Therefore based on only the information I've been given I don't think that there is an applicable CSD criteria. The article could of course still fall under any of the other criteria but I can't determine which one based off this information. Which mans that in this specific case I'd have to take it to either WP:PROD since because of the lack of notability it should be uncontested or failing that use WP:AFD to get it deleted. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 04:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC) Like

Y A well detailed answer I expected. Next section below Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 08:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

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 it for speedy deletion under G10.

Y Yep, pure attack page from the username itself. This would also qualify for A7 since there is no credible claim of significance.

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 it for speedy deletion under G11.

Y

Scenario 3

A user creates an article titled "Edward Gordon" with the following text:

'''Edward Gordon''' (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 5,000 subscribers on YouTube.

This one is trickier. I would probably use A7, and might consider G11 (although on second thought I don't actually think you can justify the unambiguous part).

Y A7 is a tricky criterion. Significance is actually a lower standard of notability see WP:SIGNIF. G11 would not apply here since information above is not that promotional and maybe used to describe a person.

Scenario 4

A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content:

Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz.

(Attribution: Ritchie333 came up with this scenario as a question to an old RfA candidate. I've borrowed his example here. Hint: Try Google searching a few key terms from this short article.)

Tag it for speedy deletion under G3 as an hoax. Both Bazz Ward and Lemmy (or at least the first one I found) are musicians not roadie's. Also potential applicable isA7 But this one was mean.

N Being in a hall of fame is a claim of significance, so A7 doesn’t apply. This is not a pure hoax since Ward exists and he might be a roadie. The guy is mentioned in The Nice and it would have been better to replace it with a redirect to the article where the subject is mentioned.

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?

Tag it for deletion under G12 as blatant copyright violation. The All Rights Reserved don't matter here as by publishing it on Wikipedia they have already agreed to release it under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.

Y Yes, Wikipedia only accepts article that are in the public domain or the author has released it under CC license or similar.

Scenario 6

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

Depends on if it exists on another wiki. If that's the case it should be speedy deleted under A2. If it doesn't exist anywhere else however it should instead be tagged with {{Not English}} and listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English

Y

Scenario 7

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content. While this could be taken as a deletion request under G7 I would probably not immediatley tag it especially not if the deletion only happened a few seconds ago to ensure the user isn't simply starting again. This doesn't apply if the edit summary were to say something like: "please delete", as in that case I would immediately tag it.

Y The customary 15 minutes

Scenario 8

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

Jlakjrelekajroi3j192809jowejfldjoifu328ur3pieisgreat

Leave it be as. Its their user page.

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

In any other namespace (with the possible exception of their own talk page) I would tag this with G1.

Y Only allowed in the user namespace

@Synoman Barris: Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Asartea Excellent work, comments above and next section below Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 19:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

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 policies linked 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?

Depends on the type of content that needs to be deleted. If revdel is needed becuase of copyright violations I would imply place {{Copyvio-revdel}} on the page and led an admin deal with it. In other cases however I would join #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect and leave the links there.

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

Email Oversight with the revisions/pages in question.

@Synoman Barris: Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 04:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

YAsartea Yap, I would mostly recommend two best ways to contact an admin or the oversight team, that is email and IRC. This is because some of these diff might be too sensitive. I would recommend not posting it on an admins talk page publicly since most admins have too many watchers. Well, next task below Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 21:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

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. 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

Clearly implicates to be Bill Gates. Report for preventive blocking until real identity can be established.

Y The person may be known as Belinda Gates, Billy Gates e.t.c so its better to watch their edits, if they edit the page of Bill Gates and use the first person edit summary and then will it be worth reporting

LMedicalCentre

Depends on the editing history of this account. If the account has contributed to Wikipedia in a constructive manner placing {{Uw-coi-username}} or a personal message alerting them of the WP:CORPNAME policy. If they instead have made vandalistic/disruptive or non-NPOV edits on articles related to LMedicalCentre I would report them to WP:UAA under the above policy's as an promotional account making promotional edits.

Y This is an outright username violation, if the editor edits making promotional edits report to UAA

Asatreaa

Alert them to the existence of my username, the similarities between them and propose using {{Distinguish}} on both of our userpages to prevent confusion

Y This user is just impersonating you, report to WP:UAA

JoeAtBurgerKing

Allow and do nothing. WP:ISU specifically exempts names such as JoeatXYZ from the promotional username policy.

Y This is not a username violation though te person may be working at a place by that name and hence maybe paid. Make sure they comply to the conditions of WP:PAID and WP:COI

JoeTheSysop

Alert them to the existence of WP:MISLEADNAME and request that they change it. Failing that after sufficient time has passed report them to WP:UAA

Y If the person is not a sysop report to UAA. There are also no admins on Wikipedia with that name

D0naldTrump

Report them at WP:UAA under WP:MISLEADNAME which prohibits real names or close enough variants. While I would normally exercise caution in reporting them and first warn them, in this particular case because of the person they are implying to be I think a preventive block is appropriate.

Y Yep report but only after they start editing

FuckAllYouAssholes

Report them under WP:ATTACKNAME at WP:UAA then submit an irc request at #wikipedia-en-revdel to have their username scrubbed from logs and edit summaries

Y Blocked without warning

Oshwaah

Allow. Oshwaah is an registered and known Doppelgänger account of Oswah per Special:CentralAuth.

N Yes, but when you see such as a username on the new user creation log it may not be Oshwah hence it is blockable for impersonation.

😜

If its an account created after 6 November 2017 place {{Uw-username}} on their talkpage with as reason the WP:NOEMOJI policy which prohibits usernames from containing emoji's. Otherwise just let them be.

Y Yep, if they dont have problematic edits

@Synoman Barris: Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 07:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Asartea Remember to only report the usernames to WP:UAA once they begin editing. Otherwise good work comments above and task below Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 14:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

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?

The Wikimedia Foundation and admins. Contact Foundation via Special:EmailUser/Emergency and admins either via private email or irc (I personally would use #wp-en-revdel ^connect) with any diffs in which the threats where made.

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)?

Exactly the same as above. I'm not in anyway qualified to be making judgments regarding the validity of a threat. If its a threat it goes to the aforementioned places where far more qualified individuals can make a judgment on its validity.

@Synoman Barris: Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Asartea Yeah but if someone’s threatens you, I would suggest emailing emergency@wikimedia.org they will know what to do if it’s a threat, an admin may not do much other that rev delete. Cheers Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 14:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Synoman Barris: which is why I included emailing Emergency in both cases. Guidelines hwoever clearly state that admins should also be contacted Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Asartea Seems like I missed that one. Well the next section is something that often happens to me most of the times and I know may happen to you at times while you fight vandalism Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 14:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Asartea All ready now, see below Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 15:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

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?

Because said recognition is one of the major reasons why people vandalize Wikipedia. Giving them recognition only encourages their behavior and makes it more likely they'll do it again.

Y Yep, as the saying goes don’t feed the trolls. Don’t engage with them at all, just revert and give the automated warnings.

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.)

These are some factors I would consider (in no particular order):

• Type of original vandalism. People who I reverted because they made a misguided good faith edit or an otherwise revertable but not straight up vandalism are in my opinion far more likely to ask an actual question than someone who felt the incredible need to insert an slew of slurs, blank entire pages or attack people, in which case I will assume bad faith in both their edits and their question
• Phrasing of the question. Someone who asks a friendly worded question is far more likely to be asking a serious question than someone who feels the need to insult and attack me. They get at best their question removed, and in worst cases require a request for revdel.
• Attitude in edit summaries. This is a more tricky factor as many vandals use good edit summaries in the hope it will allow their vandalism to slip by unnoticed. Still an friendly edit summary will make me much better inclined to them than something like "removing leftist bias and idiocy".
• Persistence of vandalism. If someone leaves a message on my talk page but also just keeps doing the same vandalism I reverted before I'm much less likely to believe they are asking me an honest question.
• Previous Behavior. If someone has an talk page so full with warnings and earlier blocks that my computer starts complaining when I load it I'm simply not going to believe they had an sudden change of heart.

Y but I will advice not to take the attitude part into consideration, obviously someone who is reverted will get pissed off (even if they are a good faith editor)

@Synoman Barris: Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Asartea Good answers, we are almost through with the course, next section below. Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 07:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

When reverting vandalism, edits made by me, edits made in my userspace and edits made by blocked users.

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

undo my rollback using the undo button with an edit summary like: "self reverting accidental use of rollback"

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

No, rollback doesn't allow you to write one.

@Synoman Barris: Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Asartea Well so far so good, only the final exams to go which I’ll download later. Do you have anything you haven’t understood and will like for it to be repeated? I think your now ready for the rollback permission which makes it easy to rollback edits easily and to mass rollback. When you make a request please ping me. Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 11:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Synoman Barris: I don't think so. Looking back I probably did the worst on the usernames part and that's also the part I'm the least interested in and the part I encounter the least (apart from Emergencies and Oversight). Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Asartea You did well in the section “Emergencies and Oversight”. I wouldn’t say you did poorly in the username part, the only issue was that you were too discrete. Username and spam is normally a major part of NPP patrol and rollback is not normally used. The only thing you need to know about username is that Never report a user who hasn’t made any edits to UAA , Report Users with problematic usernames and problematic edits to UAA from my perspective. Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 14:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Synoman Barris:. I meant oversight and Emergencies more in the context of that I never encounter them. (and I sincerely hope it stays that way) Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Synoman Barris: Exam? Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Asartea Sorry for the wait. See below Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 16:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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.

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

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

   Treat as vandalism as I cannot imagine an good-faith edit producing this, revert the edit and issue a level 1 general vandalism warning. If they had done it once before I would scale up to a level two warning if they did so recently (2-3 month ago or less). Otherwise I would restart with an level 1.

   Y more of a test edit since it’s the first time the user has edited

2. 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?

   Depending on how new they are I would probably first re issue {{uw-articlesig}} with an sterner warning attached. Repeated insertion of their sig after that I would revert as either vandalism or test edits (if the edit summary makes it clear they're testing how it looks) using the normal set of warnings and escalations.

   Y

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

   If it's a brand new user I would probably place {{welcomelaws}} on their talk page on the first offense and poin them to the section on NPOV. If they continue adding that to articles I would use the {{uw-npov1}} range of warning templates.

   Y

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

   The first time I would use {{welcometest}} on their talk page. After that its the {{Uw-test1}} range (and {{uw-vandalism4}} since there is no level 4 warning template for edit tests).

   Y

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

• Revert their edit and place an {{Uw-delete1}} template on their talk page. If they continud doing it I would keep using that range.

  If they had an history of positive contributions I would probably be more inclined to place an personal message asking for their reasoning first before using ay warning templates.

  If they had an longstanding history of disruptive editing I would immediatley start with either level two or level three templates depending on the scale of the previous disruption since they have proven that they're probably not here in good-faith.

  As a general note in all these cases I would eventually take the matter to WP:AIV.

Y Blanking is a whole different level and may not be vandalism, check again and make sure the section/page removed was not vandalism, adhered to NPOV, was well sourced and was not a BLP violation

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

1. A user blanks Cheesecake.

   If they are an new user I would probably start of with an level 1 warning template even though the sheer size would normally be enough for me to issue an level 2 warning.

   N You did not state which type of warning you will give

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

   Depends on this users previous editing history (if any). If they are a brand new user I might just leave an

   N not answered but the best warning would be {{uw-attempt1}}

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

   N same as above

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

   {{uw-vandalism1}}

   Y

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

   {{uw-delete1}}

   Y

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

   {{uw-disruptive1}} or {{uw-test1}} depending on the type of edit summary

   Y

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

   {{uw-vandalism1}}

   Y

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

   {{uw-biog2}}

   Y

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

   {{uw-delete4im}}

   Y

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

    Report them at WP:AVI

    Y

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

    Warn with a level 1 vandalism warning.

    Y {{uw-upv}} would be best

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

    {{uw-vandalism1}}

    Y

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

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

   WP:G11. Clear and unambiguous promotion of the users twitter.

   Y

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

   WP:A1. Lacks sufficiently context for any editor to find the subject of the article

   Y A7 is better, there is no significance/importance of the subject to warrant an article

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

   Either WP:A1 or WP:G2 although that one is harder to justify. Lacks sufficiently context for any editor to find the subject of the article and might be construed as an attempt to test the link function.

   Y

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

   WP:G3. Obvious hoax with no basis in reality

   Y

5. Fuck Wiki!

   WP:G3.

   Y

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

1. TheMainStreetBand

   Implies shared use (WP:ISU) and could be an promotional username (there is a real life band called that [19]). Watch closely and report to WP:UAA in case of violations.

   Y yeah , watch closely to see if they editing about there band

2. Fartypants

   Not an direct violation of any policies. Might however imply that they are NOTHERE.

   Y If there edits are disruptive, report to AIV

3. Brian's Bot

   Warn them using {{uw-username}} that their username violates WP:MISLEADNAME.

   Y Yeah but this is a clear cut violation, wait till the user edits and report to UAA unless the user is a bot

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

   Warn them using {{uw-username}} that their username violates WP:MISLEADNAME.

   Y if there is no response report to WP:RFCN

5. WikiAdmin

   report them as soon as they start making edits to WP:UAA for gross violation of WP:MISLEADNAME

   Y

6. 12:12, 23 June 2012

   Warn them that their username violates WP:MISLEADNAME.

   Y same as above

7. PMiller

   Hard one, possible violation of WP:CORPNAME or WP:IMPERSONATE since there is a real live Percy Robert Miller who is amongst other things the CEO of a business called P. Miller Enterprises. However on basis of their username alone I don't think there is sufficient reason to to report or even warn (since the could very well be called Peter Miller in real life as an example). Of course if they start editing any of the above subjects in a promotional or first person I would report them.

   Y

8. OfficialJustinBieber

   Report them to WP:UAA as soon as they start editing for an preemptive block as the person implied is important enough that identity should be established first.

   Y

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

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

   Yes absolutly. It is important to remember that the only exception from WP:3RR is in cases of clear and obvious vandalism. I can imagine a situation in which I would get in an edit war by reverting disruptive but good faith edits.

   Y Yes - it's sometimes easy to get carried away when you see obviously problematic, but good faith, editing. Familiarise yourself with the exceptions at WP:3RRNO, and do not overstep them. If in doubt, get more eyes on the situation either by approaching an admin who is active at the time, or reporting to a relevant noticeboard.

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

   WP:AIV

   Y vía tools like Twinkle

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

   WP:ANI

   Y

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

   WP:UAA

   Y

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

   I'm actually not sure but I would normally either report them to WP:ANI or in case of serious attacks (death threats, wishes for the editors death etc) I would request revdel on irc and ask for the user to be blocked to prevent it from being easily seen.

   Y Yeah to ANI, but in cases you’ve mentioned above emergency would also be better

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

   WP:AN3

   Y

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

   I'm actually not sure although my instinct is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

   Y

Asartea: 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 85%. Well done! Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 19:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

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}}: