User:Girth Summit/CVUA/Flix11

Hello Flix11, 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 these questions: 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 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.

The start

Twinkle

Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.

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

You indicated on your talk page that you've done the reading - I'm assuming that you have already got Twinkle enabled already too. We'll make a start then...GirthSummit _(blether) 11:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism

The first part of the course will focus on distinguishing between good faith edits and vandalism. You may often come across edits which are unhelpful, perhaps because they contravene a certain policy, or are very poorly written, but which are not vandalism - we will call these good faith edits. It is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labelling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF, WP:BITE and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks (even if you've read them before, I'd suggest re-reading them now).

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

Good faith edit is an edit that might be incorrectly written or even untrue, but is done with no intention from the writer, vandalism edit is the exact opposite. The writer's sole purpose is to deliberately misguide article's readers. – Felixbs 14:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, so this answers the first part of the question, and it's correct - vandalism is only something that is done with the intention of causing harm to the project. Any editing that is done with the intention of helping the project, even if it is unsourced, has POV issues, runs against certain policies or guidelines, or indeed is written so badly it's impossible to make sense of - it's not vandalism.

I'd be eager to hear your response to the second part of the question - how could you tell one from the other? Please set out your thoughts on this.

By the way, I asked above for you to ping me when you respond. My watchlist has about 14,000 pages on it, so it's not really useful any more as a means of tracking changes in conversations I'm engaged in, so a ping lets me know that you've added something. Please also ensure you sign your posts here using four tildes (pings don't work without that). Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Duly noted. The GFE is as I said, probably incorrectly written, or might be not (but nearly) 100% correct. Vandalism edit has 0% correctness. – Felixbs 16:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Flix11 - I'm afraid I didn't get that ping either. Your signature doesn't look like a valid signature (it doesn't have links to your userpage or talk page, which would be typical) - are you sure you are signing it with four tildes?

With regard to your answer, remember that it's all about intent. You can't judge intent on whether or not the information in an edit is correct - a person could add completely erroneous information without any sourcing, but be doing it in the belief that they are right - that's not vandalism. The key to this part is that we assume good faith, unless it's so obviously vandalism that nobody could be in any doubt. If someone has a history of adding nonsense for the LOLs you might fairly conclude that it's vandalism, but for an IP or new account's first contribution, the bar for vandalism is pretty high. 'I just fucked your mom' would be vandalism; 'I love this show!', or 'This guy is really handsome', or 'This company rips people off, don't use them', or even 'sofudnbsriugbserubsidfubvidiufbadoifuvndsifubsfd' would not be considered vandalis. They would all need to be reverted, of course, but we would do a good faith revert, leave an edit summary, and give an appropriate warning - promotion, unsourced controversial information, test edit, for example. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I don't know whether you've used the 'Recent Changes' feed before? There's a link to it on the left side of your screen, in the 'Interaction' section. If you go into there, you'll see that you can add filters to your feed. I'd like you to set yours up so that you have it show 'Likely bad faith' changes - that will allow you to see recent edits made to articles all over Wikipedia, that have raised some automated flags and so are likely (but not guaranteed) to be vandalism, or problematic in some other way.

Please find five examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and five examples of vandalism. Don't revert any of them until I've reviewed them please, just post the diffs below - see WP:DIFF if you're unfamiliar with how to do that. It's not a problem if someone else reverts them before I get chance to review them - I'll be able to review them in the history (unless they get revdelled, which would be unusual)

@Girth Summit: Wait, so I have to find 10 of those that has not been reverted? – Felixbs (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes please - if you monitor recent changes, you'll see several coming in each minute. It shouldn't take long to find some. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:

GFEs:
- Special:Diff/899930145 Comment: I will do the same as the reverted editor, since the SRBiH was a state within SFRY, like adding Los Angeles, California, U.S.

Meh. A slight change from one unreferenced assertion (saying that the movie character is an ex-US marine) to another unreferenced assertion (saying that the character is US marine (presumably still serving)). Stuff about the plot of movies and books is very often unreferenced - technically I guess this is OR (since the editor will probably be deriving details about the plot by watching the movie), but to be honest I personally wouldn't bother investigating this, let alone reverting it. The would obviously be different if this was a real person, since WP:BLP would apply.

There's nothing that suggests bad intent here; I see the edit was reverted, with an edit summary giving the explanation, and no warning for the user, which seems appropriate to me.

- Special:Diff/899937469 Comment: The intent was to shorten the line. However, in my opinion, it is not right because the context between the last sentence and before are not really "related". It was said Bogusz represented Poland in several age groups. But it only has U20 level.

I'm not sure there's much wrong with this user's changes here. The article originally said he's played in the U19 squad; the user changed it to add that he'd played in 'several' age groups, and added the U20 squad. I guess the word 'two' would be better than 'several' (which generally implies greater than two), and there isn't a source, but I wouldn't revert this. I'd probably look for a source to support the assertion about the U20 squad and leave it at that (since I'm not sure he didn't play for any other age groups apart from these two).

- Special:Diff/899910720 Comment: Unreferenced change.

Meh - a very minor change to an already unsourced assertion about a fictional character in a movie. I wouldn't bother investigating this, let alone reverting it, if I'm honest.

- Special:Diff/899670551 Comment: Repeated, either erased or not have no differences.

I don't understand your comment here. This edit added an assertion that the subject died in 2013 - it was reverted by wtmitchell as unsourced, which isn't strictly correct since the death date is sourced elsewhere in the article; however, it's redundant because the first sentence already gives the death date, so I'm not going to undo the revert.

- Special:Diff/899938226 Comment: Unreferenced radical change by a minutes-old account, tagged as possible vandalism.

OK, so at a quick glance, this isn't obvious vandalism. They made a few changes, including changing his name (that's possibly what tripped the 'possible vandalism' filter), and they've changed a few of the details about his current team and series he races in. When you look at it more closely however, there are some very dubious details - they're saying he had 42 wins, but his best finish was 102nd? That makes no sense. This is the first and only edit from a new account, so I'm going to revert it, but since it's not obviously vandalism, I'm going to leave an edit summary, and I'm going to give the user an 'inserting factually incorrect information' warning, rather than a vandalism one. It's a first offense, so it will be a level 1 warning.

VEs:
- Special:Diff/899938226 Comment: Unreferenced radical change by a minutes-old account, tagged as possible vandalism.

You also listed this above in the Good Faith section, so I'm not clear on whether you think this is good faith or vandalism? I'm tending towards vandalism, but as discussed above it was subtle so I left an edit summary and used a more specific talk page warning.

- Special:Diff/899936457 Comment: Possible GFE, but the fact that the editor adding Chinese characters right beside Latin alphabets without even a space changed my mind.

On the face of it, this could just as easily have been a test edit - not helpful, but not obvious vandalism. However, apparently the IP was being disruptive in other ways, and was attempting to make other edits that were disallowed by the edit filter, which reduces the amount of good faith we can extend.

- Special:Diff/899895203 Comment: It seems like the editor likes Union Pacific a lot. LOL.

Hmm. I'm not sure this is vandalism, I think it's more likely good faith but totally incompetent. The IP made a number of changes recently, all of them about rail roads, and all of them seemingly related the reopening of a railroad under new management. They were ungrammatical to the extent of being unintelligible, and entirely unsourced, so they needed reverting of course, but I wouldn't have called them vandalism. I see MaterialScientist used a level 1 vand warning; I'd probably have gone for an unsourced changes warning myself, or perhaps a personal message saying that I couldn't really work out what they were trying to say, but if they could put a source on the talk page I'd add information to the page if I could work out what they were trying to add.

- Special:Diff/898960730 Comment: Committed by a blocked BLP violator.

This is inserting direct insults into a BLP - no way to read that as good faith, it's definitely vandalism.

- Special:Diff/885432455 Comment: Committed by a blocked BLP violator, changed a football (soccer) player's club because the player unintentionally scored an own goal for the team written by the violator.

This is where your specialist knowledge comes in useful - I wouldn't have known about the own goal thing, so might have just reverted with a good faith 'unsourced' warning. Your reasoning makes me agree with you that this was likely vandalism - also, the page was coming in for a lot of attention for similar edits from various IPs and new accounts around that time, so I would likely have requested temporary semi protection at WP:RPP (we'll cover that later in the course). As for the level of the warning, you could make a case for a 4im in this case, since they made a series of similar edits after being reverted. Your modified 4im, however, is not appropriate - just use the standard warning templates.

– Felixbs (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Great - I'll look through these as soon as I can - it might be tomorrow though, I'm going to be out for most of today. Just a quick reminder on pinging - you need to add your signature in the same edit as you add the ping, or it won't be triggered. So far, I haven't received any of your notifications from this page, I'm only seeing your edits by manually checking into it. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I did so, oddly. – Flix11 (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've added some feedback above, please read through it and make any further comments you want underneath each of the examples. I'll upload the next section later on.

Just to explain why the previous pings weren't working (I got your last one): here you added a ping, with no signature; here you changed the type of ping, but didn't add a signature; here you added your signature, but since the pings were already on the page they weren't triggered. Pings will only work if you sign the post in the same edit as you added the ping (as you did here - I received that one). Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Flix11: The next section is below GirthSummit _(blether) 10:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

OK, so I hope you appreciate now the difference between clear-cut vandalism and other edits that might be vandalism, but which we are required to assume are good faith (though misguided). Just because we assume good faith doesn't mean we don't revert - we just to it differently, using different options in Twinkle, which will result in different edit summaries and user warnings.

The next section will explore how and why we revert and warn users, and will assume that you are using Twinkle. There are other counter vandalism tools such as Huggle and Stiki, but Twinkle is the one that's easiest to use when you are browsing and editing normally. When you use Twinkle revert a user, by default it will automatically take you to their tal page and allow you to choose a warning from a number of different options - you can choose the most appropriate type of warning to give, and the most appropriate level - it is important to make the right choice. Please read WP:WARN and WP:UWUL, and then answer the following questions.

Please answer the following questions

Why do we warn users? (There is more than one way to address this - please consider and answer fully)

To tell the editor that his/her edit(s) was/were incorrectly done. The warning may contains guidance for improving the editor's understanding, and may contains some kind of "threat" (blocking one, of course), in order to make him/her stop doing the harm. If the editor (account/IP address) has done the inappropriate edits for some time, the warnings also help other editors to know that this is an editor with a "rap sheet".

Good, you got two of the main things I was looking for - to inform the users that what they are doing is wrong and give them advice, and also to allow other editors to see easily that they have done stuff like this before. There's one other strand to this - a history of warning makes it the decision about whether or not to block easier for administrators. If a user has only had one or two warnings, admins often won't block unless their vandalism is particularly egregious. If there is a clear history of warnings, going from levels 1 - 4 and followed by further disruption, they won't think twice about blocking.

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

If and when the editor is a persistent and blatant vandal (doing this over and over), and especially vandalizing one particular page (mainly BLPs, e.g. Aidan Gallagher).

Yes, that's one instance - repeated vandalism, when they haven't been warned before. The other instance is egregious vandalism - if I find racist abuse on a BLP, or an unsourced accusation of sex crimes, or stuff like that, I'll go straight to 4im.

: @Girth Summit: For this question, I should ask whether it is done with Twinkle? Because frankly, I do not know how to use it.

– Flix11 (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, the short answer is that yes, you should substitute a warning template when you place it on a talk page. Twinkle does this automatically for you. Essentially, substituting the template stops the displayed text from changing should the template ever be changed at a future date (in which case it may become less relevant for the user you've given it to).

OK, good work on these questions. Can you see now why some other editors were concerned about your placing a personalised version of the 4im vandalism template on the talk page of new users who weren't unambiguously vandalising pages? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Got it. I should do level-per-level warnings except for one so severely damaging. – Flix11 (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes - you should also be using the appropriate type of warning - only use a vandalism warning for clear-cut, no-doubt-about-it vandalism. Anything else, use the appropriate one - my most frequent ones are test edit, unsourced content (or, sometimes, unsourced controversial information about a BLP). Twinkle makes it really easy to choose the right level and type of warning. Oftentimes though, if a user is making good-faith contributions but just not following policy, a friendly personal message with a link to the relevant policy is better than a warning template.

There's something else you should read before we go any further - please take a look at WP:DENY. Once you've done that, please explain why edit summaries like this one are discouraged Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: From what I read, some vandals are not getting social recognition in real life. We shall not "apply cold water" to their "wound". Is that correct? – Flix11 (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Kind of. Basically, a lot of vandals do what they do to get a response. They want you to get angry and shout at them - it gives them the confrontation they're looking for. As soon as you show in any way that they've managed to piss you off, you've given them a reason to keep doing it. If you withhold from any kind of personal message, and just respond by reverting and using the obviously automated, standardised talk page message, they are far more likely to get bored and stop doing it.

That all applies to actual vandals of course - if they're not vandals, but a good faith newb (as the editor at 82.57.44.190 was), then calling them a vandal is inappropriate for obvious reasons.

At this point, I'd like to give you a couple of options. If you like, I'd be happy to take you through the entire CVUA course (we're probably about 10% of the way through it at this stage, just to put that into perspective); alternatively, if you just want to go back to doing your own thing, what I'll do is make a table for you below to post any reverts, and any warnings that you issue in. I'll monitor your next 10 reverts/warnings, and let you know if I see any issues. After that, assuming there are no issues, I'll post to the admins that got involved in the ANI thread that I'm happy you've got the message, and we can call it a day. How would you like to proceed? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Let the course continues. – Flix11 (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, we will continue. The next stage will be finding and reverting some vandalism and/or good faith edits, and warning the users in an appropriate manner. I would advise you to use the 'Recent Changes' queue for this, with the 'Likely bad faith' filter applied, and use Twinkle to do the reverting and the warning - let me know if you have any questions with any of that.

When you're doing the reverting, please remember:

If you think it might be a good faith edit, use Twinkle's green 'Rollback AGF' option, and leave an explanatory edit summary.
If you think it is likely vandalism, but it's not so obvious and you think some explanation would be helpful, use Twinkle blue 'Rollback' option, and leave an explanatory edit summary (the instance with the Chelsea/Tottenham footballer you mentioned above would fall into this category).
Only if you are certain that there is no doubt about vandalism, and it would be obvious to anyone with no knowledge of the subject that it is vandalism, should you use the red 'Rollback (Vandal)' option.

I'll leave a note on the ANI thread, saying that I've asked you to start doing this.GirthSummit _(blether) 07:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The ANI thread has been archived, so pinging @Natureium:, @Meters:, @Robby.is.on:, @RainFall:, @SharabSalam:, @Grandpallama:, @Nosebagbear:, @Black Kite:, @Boing! said Zebedee:, @Ponyo: (hope I haven't missed anyone...) - please note that I have asked Flix11 to start reverting and warning again, so that I can ensure that they now understand how to do so appropriately. I'm confident that they'll be able to do this without causing any disruption, but I will be monitoring. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 07:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: - thanks for taking on some training for Flix11. If Flix doesn't opt for the full CVA training, I think it would be good to at least monitor sufficient edits until a wider variety of vandal, disruptive and GF edits have all been distinguished from each other - I'm concerned that 10 can be too small a sample size, just be the fluke of recent changes. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Flix11 has indicated that they want to proceed with the course, so hopefully this issue won't arise, but you make a good point - 10 might not be enough to encounter a sufficiently wide range of situations. I'll continue to monitor any reverts or warnings, either during the course if it's continued to completion, or afterwards if it's terminated early - thanks for the advice. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. For each revert/warning please fill in a line on the table below.

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff	Trainer's Comment
1	Special:Diff/900410608	Unreferenced	I don't understand why you've included this DIFF - you didn't make the revert, and you don't seem to have edited this page recently at all. Did you paste the wrong link?
2	Special:Diff/900412058	Unexplained removal, however I think I chose wrong on talk page using Twinkle.	OK, so this one and the next few seem to be all from the same IP. I'm going to leave some more extensive comments on this below.
3	Special:Diff/900412397	Unexplained removal, however I think I chose wrong on talk page using Twinkle.	See above
4	Special:Diff/900412532	Unexplained removal, however I think I chose wrong on talk page using Twinkle.	See above
5	Special:Diff/900412614	Unexplained removal, however I think I chose wrong on talk page using Twinkle.	See above
6	Special:Diff/900413989	Unexplained removal, however I think I chose wrong on talk page using Twinkle.	See above
7	Special:Diff/900413348	Unexplained removal, however I think I chose wrong on talk page using Twinkle.	See above
8	Special:Diff/900415721	Unreferenced, adding a red link.	Looks suspicious; Google seems to confirm that there are no notable people with this name, so this is probably just someone adding themselves. Your level 1 vandalism warning is justified.
9	Special:Diff/900416338	Seems like the editor does not like the new name.	A bit of a strange one. The edit summary is a little deceptive, and they have obviously been causing disruption elsewhere from the messages on their talk page, so your level 4 warning was appropriate.
10	Special:Diff/900417972	Adding promotion to watch a Youtube video viewed only 10x.	I agree that was a promotional link, so your revert and level one promotion warning were both appropriate.

OK Flix11, I've been through these diffs and left some feedback above. I agree with some of what you've done, but the 'associated acts' IP is a bit of an oddity. This isn't clear-cut vandalism, but obviously someone going from page to page removing stuff is disruptive - however, all of their edits were made before your initial revert and warning. They'd already stopped doing it by the time you left your first warning, so your escalation of the warnings up to level 4 wasn't really called for. I think in this situation, I would have reverted their changes, perhaps given a level 2 'removing sourced content' warning, and then actually asked in a non-automated message why they were removing these acts - they might have some sort of rationale that you could have discussed.

I think we probably need to go through a few more reverts and warnings - there's a new table below. If you come across a single user who you revert multiple times, please just treat that as a single instance, and leave a comment explaining what happened. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes I pasted the wrong. OK then. – Flix11 (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff	Trainer's Comment
1	Special:Diff/900503555	Included 2 links and on website section the editor typed "Mysite", kind of suspicious.	Agreed - those refs looked promotional, your revert and warning were appropriate.
2	Special:Diff/900504176	Supposedly Phil Jackson's big fan.	Indeed - a bit weird. Revert definitely, warning I'm not 100% sure of - is this vandalism? Or just, as you say, someone who thinks that Phil Jackson's influence should be mentioned in the section header. Personally, I'd probably have held off on warning, and just said in my edit summary that I didn't think that was an improvement. It was just a level 1 though, so not too aggressive - no big deal.
3	Special:Diff/900505329	Unsourced	Well, technically the revert and warning aren't incorrect; however, with changes like this I'd check for sources first. One of the first hits I got was this - it looks to me like a newbie who was making a constructive, factually accurate edit, but didn't know about adding sources. Hopefully your warning will give them some hints about adding sources, but if I were you I would go back and undo your edit, adding a source, and drop a note on their talkpage thanking them for their edit, and just encouraging them to add a source next time.
4	Special:Diff/900506280	Unsourced	I agree with this revert and warning however. It was an inappropriate (and substantial) addition, to the wrong part of the article, and as you correctly pointed out, entirely unsourced.
5	Special:Diff/900507671	Making ref error	Actually, they were trying to fix a ref error - the 'ref' that was there wasn't a ref, it was an unreferenced assertion. The only problem was that they removed the start of the ref tag, but didn't remove the end of it. I've fixed it now, and added a 'citation needed' tag. Your 'Test edit' warning would have been the right one to use had they actually been tinkering with a ref - in this case, I don't think they necessarily needed warning.
6	Special:Diff/900513189	Vontobel Volt salesman, apparently	The little copyright symbol is a bit of a giveaway - an 'unsourced' warning might have been correct here, but given the editing pattern (all their contribs so far are about Vontobel) I agree that there is likely COI, to the promotional warning was correct.
7	Special:Diff/900514597	Unsourced	Hmm. I don't think I would have reverted here. The material they removed was sourced only to the play itself - I suspect that the analysis you reinstated is actually OR, and the assertions about anti-semitism were unsourced. So basically, they removed some OR and inserted their own. There are some references listed at the bottom of the article, but without in-line citations and page number etc., it would be a huge effort to check through to see what's supported by the sources and what isn't. In a case like this, which clearly isn't vandalism and where it's not clear whether the changes were improvements or not, I would leave it and hope that a subject-matter expert has the page on their watchlist.
8	Special:Diff/900514902	Content removal without explanation	Yes, agree with this - not that the article is in a great state as it is, but their changes actually rendered the section header meaningless, so revert/level 1 warning was appropriate.
9	Special:Diff/900515253	Content removal without explanation	Oof - that article is a mess. I can see why you reverted - they removed some references, which is never good - but if you look at some of the text you reinstated, it's awfully promotional - ' specialty farm equipment retailers and manufacturers lead the way in innovation and forward-thinking' - it sounds like an advert. I don't think I'd have reverted there - I'd have either left it alone, or gone in and done some major pruning, while rescuing the refs that they removed.
10	Special:Diff/900515686	Typo, I guess	Yes - your revert, and test edit warning, were appropriate.

OK, I've been through these now - please read through my comments, and let me know if you disagree with any of them, or have any questions. In short - your warning is much better now, you're using the appropriate type and level of warning each time. I've got a few reservations about some of the things you chose to revert however - remember, sometimes removing text is an improvement, even if it's not explained with an edit summary. Take time to read through the changes, and see whether you really think the article was better before the change was made. Only revert if you are confident that the version you are reverting to was better - if you're not sure, it's sometimes better just to leave it alone. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Noted. Shall we continue? – Flix11 (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

New testing table

OK, so one thing I noted in the diffs above is that not very much of this appears to be actual vandalism. It would probably be useful for you to try to identify some real vandalism, and deal with it accordingly. Can I just check - when you look at the new pages feed, are you applying the 'Likely Bad Faith' filter? If you do that, a significant proportion of what you find will probably be vandalism. Don't feel you need to start at the top of the feed either - you'll find that new entries are often reverted almost immediately by people using Huggle, but if you start a bit further down, you'll find some of the stuff that the hugglers have missed. Just as an example, it took just a few minutes to find this, this and this.

I've put a new table below - please find and revert some vandalism, and warn the users with the appropriate level of warning. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I do not apply the filter. How can I activate it? – Flix11 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Go to recent changes; near the top of the page, above the feed, you'll see a box that says 'Filter changes (use menu or search for filter name)'. Scroll down to 'User intent predictions' and select 'Likely bad faith'. As the name suggests, that will filter out changes that are probably OK, and only show you edits that the AI thinks are likely to be bad faith. Don't go mad with reverting - it's by no means certain that these are bad faith edits, but a high percentage of them are. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff	Trainer's Comment
1	Special:Diff/901079920	Reference removal	Y Agreed - this appears to have been removed selectively. Level 1 vand warning was appropriate.
2	Special:Diff/901080240	Gibberish writing, possibly deliberate since he/she committed it twice and with long characters.	Y Agreed - if they had put in a single string of random characters, it could be interpreted as a test edit; doing it multiple times, in several distinct parts of the article, can't really be seen as good faith. Level 1 vand warning was appropriate.
3	Special:Diff/901081729	Unsourced	Y You were right to revert, but this isn't clear-cut vandalism - you should ideally have left an edit summary, just perhaps 'unsourced name change'. You used an appropriate warning template however, which is good.
4	Special:Diff/901094333	Possible BLP violation	Y Yes - clearly misrepresenting the source. I've gone a bit further, and inserted the actual headline into the 'title' field in the reference.
5	Special:Diff/901095002	Added improper link	Y Strictly speaking, this is spam rather than vandalism, but it certainly needed to be reverted - the editor appeared to be trying to promote their own blog. Your warning, and subsequent welcome with helpful links, were entirely appropriate.
6	Special:Diff/901242210	Link removal abandoned for 2 months, clear as day.	Y Interesting - hard to see this as good faith, since the article they targeted it at doesn't exist, and makes no sense (in that it doesn't share a name with the subject of this article). How did you find this? (FYI, Stiki is a really good tool for detecting old vandalism that slipped through the net).
7	Special:Diff/901248332	Unreferenced, possibly BLP violation	? What makes you think this is vandalism? I'm not saying that it isn't, I just don't know. Does that phrase mean something that I'm not getting? With no particular knowledge, it looks to me like it might be a nickname - you're right to revert it, we don't use nicknames unless they are well-documented and widely known, but without more info I wouldn't label that as definitely vandalism.
8	Special:Diff/901249141	Gibberish talking, see also its previous edits	Y Silly vandalism, you reverted and used escalated warnings appropriately. I have no doubt that, if they had made one more such edit and you'd reported to AIV, and admin would have blocked after seeing the trail of warnings.
9	Special:Diff/901249702	Blatant vandalism, I suppose.	Y I looked to see if I could make any sense of the edit, and I can't. Alloy Annan is not an alternative name for Vijay (actor), it's not the name of the character he played in this film, and I can't think of any explanation other than someone inserting the name as a joke. Silly vandalism, appropriate revert and warning.
10	Special:Diff/901255766	Definitely blatant	Y Yes - I agree, blatant vandalism, appropriate revert and warning.
11	Special:Diff/901313854	Definitely blatant	Y Yes, no way that was good faith!

Good work on these. Could you expand on the one above which I questioned - I'm not sure that you're wrong, but I'd like to explore your line of thinking on this one. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It is more like adding gibberish and say it is someone's name. But OK, I added the 11th so that the 7th can be redeemed. I found the drive-through by chance. I can not even remember how. – Flix11 (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, well there was no doubt about your 11th! On the 7th one, that's really one of those edge cases. In truth, it was probably vandalism, but the bar is (or should be) a bit higher than that - I'd have done a blue revert there, leaving an edit summary like 'unreferenced nickname' or something like that.

OK, I think we've put enough diffs into tables. Please carry on reverting and warning to build up a track record, but I'm going to move onto the next section - protection and deletion. See below... GirthSummit _(blether) 19:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion

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

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

Semi-protection is usually applied on a short period of time when an article is getting vandalized a lot, like a BLP article when the person is under a lot of attention in the news or a sports competition article to avoid WP:LIVESCORES.

Yes - specifically, it's when a lot of IP user or new accounts are targeting a page. If it's all coming from one or two places, we usually just block those accounts rather than protect the page.

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

Some pending changes protection is applied permanently for pages receiving low traffic but getting massive amount of vandalism or bias editing.

Yes - or rather, it's for lower levels of vandalism over a sustained period. It creates a bit more work, since reviewers have to spend time checking the page, so semi is better if a page is actively getting lots of vandalism.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

When an article is under an edit war or vandalized by many confirmed accounts. This kind of protection is also applied to critical templates (mostly Infoboxes) and modules.

Y

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

When an article has been recreated many times after has been deleted every time by admins.

Y

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

When the talk page is under vandalism.

Y This would be a very unusual situation, since if the talk page is protected then people can't request changes. Still, it can happen for short periods if there is a lot of disruption and blocking accounts isn't fixing it.

@Flix11: Hi - sorry I didn't give you feedback on this sooner, without the ping I didn't realise you'd responded here. I've checked through your recent contributions - I'm satisfied that your approach to using warning templates is much better now - do you want to continue with the rest of the course? (No need to request the protection before moving on to other sections.) The rest of the course covers things like requesting speedy deletion, requesting revdel, username policies, rollback and what to do in an emergency (e.g. threats of violence and self harm). Ping me here if you'd like to continue; if not, I'll ping users from the original AN/I thread and confirm that I'm satisfied that you've addressed the issues that were discussed there - your call, just let me know.GirthSummit _(blether) 08:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request at WP:RPP below. (Note - it might take you a while to come across a circumstance where this is required - we can continue with the next section of the course before you do this, but when the need arises please post here and ping me).

I've put the start of the next section below. If you do request page protection, do post back at this section and ping me. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi - it's been a few weeks since you did any work on this, do you still want to proceed with it? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I will continue on August. Thanks. – Flix11 (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, no problem - ping me when you respond, cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Flix11: Just a prod - if you're no longer interested in continuing, I can just close this page off at this point. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

Pages full of nonsensical content, no English at all, vandalism, harassment, obvious hoaxes, copyright violation, promotional, and unnecessary disambiguation pages.

Yep, that's about right - the most common ones are probably copyright infringement and promotional pages, plus the odd attack page. Take a look at the next section, and explain what you would do in each situation... GirthSummit _(blether) 17:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion examples

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.

WP:G3 would do.

Yes, this is pretty clear vandalism. You might also consider G10 as an attack page - that automatically blanks the page at the same time as applying the CSD tag - in this case, it's not grossly offensive to it's not really necessary, but be aware that that is an option.

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.

WP:G11 would do.

Yep, blatant advertising.

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.

WP:A7 would do.

I agree - there no claim to significance here.

Scenario 4

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

Bazz Ward was a great 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.)

WP:A7 would do, but Bazz Ward was actually existed, so redirect would do better.

A7 would be fine, but a redirect to The Nice, where he is mentioned, would be even better. It's always a good idea to do a quick search for someone before nominating for A7 - alternatives to deletion should always be considered, so check to see whether there's anything that might serve our readers better than a delete before CSDing this kind of thing.

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?

WP:CP would do.

You haven't explained whether your action would be different in the two different scenarios - please expand.

OK, this is a valid response. Personally, I'm a bit more cautious - I would G12 in either event. Be aware that we should assume that material is covered by copyright, with or without a statement to that effect, unless we're very confident that it's not covered (for example if there is free content hosted on a website, which happens to match our usage of the same free text). If you tag it as a potential violation, an admin will be able to find it, review and take appropriate action, so that response is OK, but G12 is valid if you suspect a possible 'cut and paste job' on a new article or userpage from a website. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Scenario 6

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

WP:A2 would do.

A2 only applies to content that already exists at another language version of Wikipedia - check to see whether that is the case, and if it is, then it's an A2. Otherwise, I'd start by grabbing a chunk of the text and putting it into Google translate. If it looks like vandalism, advertising or whatever, then deal with it accordingly. If it's not, and it looks like it might be useful encyclopedic content, then you can flag it for translation (there are instructions for this at WP:A2).

Correction, I will report it to WP:PNT so that can be translated properly, if not violating A2.

Well, yes - if it's not vandalism or promotional, that would be the thing to do. I'd recommend that you start by grabbing a chunk of the text and putting it into Google Translate - if it's problematic, then act according to what you find. If it appears to be encyclopedic text, and it doesn't exist at the relevant language's Wikipedia, then flagging it for translation is the right option.

Scenario 7

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

WP:G7 would do.

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?

WP:G1 would do.

You haven't explained whether you would respond differently in the two different scenarios - please expand.

Correction, on a user page it is their absolute right to write everything they want as long as it is not a harassment or promotion or anything violating WP policies. That said, I will leave it alone. On articles or categories filled with that, G1 shall be applied.

Yes - in article space, this would be G1; in user space, if that's what the user wants to have on their page, that's up to them - so long as it's not in contravention of WP:UP, they're welcome to have gibberish. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Flix11: Hi - I'm sorry it took so long to respond to you on this, I'm afraid I didn't realise that you'd updated it. Please see the feedback above - there are a couple of answers I'd like you to expand on. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Flix11 Hi again Flix - I'm looking to free up some slots for new CVUA students. You haven't updated the page for a few weeks - do you want to proceed with this course? If not, I'll mark it as inactive - I think it's clear you know how to go about warning other users now, there's no obligation for you to finish the rest of the course. If you do want to proceed, please could you respond to the sections I'm noted above that require more attention? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I will follow it up on 26th. Thanks for the notice. – Flix11 (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Great - OK, I'll look out for your update. The good news is that you've done the bulk of the course now, just a few more short sections to finish it off. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Flix11 Thanks for expanding on Q6 and Q8 - I've responded above. Please could you take a look at Q5 as well? GirthSummit _(blether) 21:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Flix11 Good stuff - next section is below... GirthSummit _(blether) 09:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Usernames

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

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

Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particular attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.

Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why). If you need more information before deciding what to do, explain what more you need.

@Girth Summit: Questions & Answers:

BGates

We assume that the user's real first name is something "B" and Gates is his/her real surname. If the user contributes positively, then fine. However I will advise his/her to create a new account with a different username. But if the account vandalizes, especially to something related to Microsoft, then we'll finish the matter in WP:UAA.

Y Perfect - yes, there's probably nothing wrong with this, unless there is behavioural evidence to suggest that they are attempting to impersonate Bill Gates.
LMedicalCentre

If its contribution(s) related to medical things, maybe a potential name change should be discussed. If promoting anything related to the "L", then we'll go to WP:UAA per WP:ORGNAME.

Y Yes - if it becomes clear that they are making promotional edits, then a trip to UAA would see the account blocked quickly; if you can't work out what the name refers to, but they are editing in the medical arena, then perhaps a discussion with them about their username would be the better route.
G1rth Summ1t

In case the account is not under your control; Impersonation is (I think) a capital crime in WP. Go to WP:UAA at once.

Y Yep - this has happened to me a couple of times, and I've picked up on a few accounts set up to attempt to troll various admins - trolling basically. UAA straight away.
JoeAtBurgerKing

Warn only if edits disruptively in articles related to BK, otherwise like Elsa of Frozen says: "Let It Go..."

Y Yep - the 'Joe at' identifies the individual, and mentioning your employer in your username is explicitly permitted; I would take a look at their contribs though. If they are editing in compliance with COI (so, for example, making change requests at Burger King rather than editing it directly) then leave them alone.
JoeTheSysop

Posing as sysop, might mislead. Per WP:MISLEADNAME, will report it to WP:UAA.

Y Yep - straight to UAA.
Flix!1

In case the account is not under my control, that is impersonation. Go to WP:UAA as fast as Road Runner.

Y As above.
D0naldTrump

Might report to WP:UAA per WP:MISLEADNAME, as it is highly unlikely a president will edit on Wikipedia.

Y Yes - names representing famous people are generally blocked immediately; the blocking admin will leave a message explaining that we're doing this to protect the famous person's identity, and if it really is them, they can e-mail the OTRS team with evidence to back that up and the account will be unblocked. So, if we did block the president, he would be able to get himself unblocked pretty quickly.
FuckAllYouAssholes

Per WP:ATTACKNAME, will report it to WP:UAA.

Y Yep.
😜

Per WP:NOEMOJI, might be discussed in WP:RFCN.

If you can be bothered. Personally, if they were editing productively, I'd just leave them alone - but if an emoji in a username bothers you, you can start a discussion at RFCN.

Flix11 Good stuff - all good answers, next section below. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Emergencies

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

Fortunately, there's a guideline for cases like this. Please read Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm carefully and respond to the questions below.

@Girth Summit: Q&As:

Who should you contact when you encounter a threat of harm on Wikipedia? What details should you include in your message?

I shall immediately send an e-mail to emergency wikimedia.org the details of the threat. I can also use the Wikipedia mail service to contact Special:EmailUser/Emergency should I have an account with e-mail enabled.

I shall contact an administrator using e-mail or IRC or any other low-visibility methods (perhaps Facebook Messenger and direct messages tabs on Twitter or Instagram are included in this) and specify the same details as above.
I shall request an oversight since these posts frequently include personal information that must be censored.

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)?: Do as the above, as we are told to treat all claims seriously. Leave it to the Foundation staff(s).

Flix11 (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Flix11 - yes, that's all good. Personally, I'd recommend that you use IRC to report anything urgent - nine times out of ten, it's the fastest way to get a response. As for the other stuff - use your best judgement of course, but anything vaguely credible should be reported to the Emergencies team, and if in doubt, report. Next task below... GirthSummit _(blether) 22:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users

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

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

@Girth Summit: Per WP:DENY, we have to do it to neutralize common primary motivators for vandalism and disruption. Ot means we have to not recognize them to stop their troll.

Yes - attention is a major motivator for trolling, these people want to get your attention. If we simply clean up their mess, give them an obviously impersonal warning, and move on, they are less likely to keep doing it than if we get into an argument with them (which is really what they want).

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.)

First I see whether the revert is reasonable or not. If not, I will ask the revert editor and revert my edit for a while. If the reason keep unexplained and reverted again, I will revert and issue a warning. Second, I will view its contributions and talk page history. If it has a good reputation, I might thing to comply. If not, I will revert and issue a warning. Flix11 (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Looking at their contributions history is a good call. Remember that some good-faith editors get really annoyed about being reverted, and might be very rude to begin with - if you are calm and professional in your manner, they usually calm down quickly. So, yes - look at the original edit again, see whether you might have been mistaken about reverting, and if you think the editor isn't a vandal then discuss it with them calmly. If you look at their contribs and decide that they are actually a vandal, and they've come to your talk page to troll you, then yes, revert, warn, and report to AIV or ANI as appropriate. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Rollback?

OK Flix11 - we've been through all of the sections of the course, except the one on Rollback. That is entirely optional - is the rollback permission something that you would be interested in? The main benefits is access to counter vandalism programs like Huggle and Stiki - let me know if you're interested and I'll add the section about that, otherwise we can proceed to the final exam. Cheers! GirthSummit _(blether) 12:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Sorry totally forgot about this. Let's go for the finals! Flix11 (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Flix11 no worries - glad to pick it up again. I've put the final exam below - go through it at your own pace and ping me when you're finished. Cheers! GirthSummit _(blether) 15:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent Issues

Hi Flix11 - an editor has recently brought my attention to some recent issues on your user talk page, and in your edit summaries at 2020 Singapore Open. A few things jump out at me, and I wanted to discuss them with you here rather than on the more public venue of your talk page.

At 2020 Singapore Open, you were pretty rude to CASSIOPEIA, who is an experienced NPP patroller. I don't know how much you know about NPP, but one of the things we do is to evaluate the notability of articles. When I look at the version of the article they patrolled, I only see affiliated references - that's not enough to demonstrate a pass at GNG, which is the standard one should aspire to. In adding those refs, CASSIOPEIA was helping to ensure that the article didn't get deleted - and you reverted them? Then, when you find that they made a mistake with some of the fields in the ref template, you insult them (are you healthy?)? CASS was trying to help you improve the article - why were you so hostile?
On your talk page now, I see evidence of other editors such as Sakiv and Bbb23 querying your reverts, but you have not made any response - no explanation, no apology, you just ignore them. That does against what we have already covered on this course, you're expected to respond to good faith editors, and to address their queries and apologise when necessary if you have reverted them.
More worrying still perhaps, further up your talk page I can see editors again querying your giving Level 4 warnings for minor vandalism. We have been through this already - a 4im warning is for serious, egregious vandalism, and this is very reminiscent of what you were originally brought to ANI for, and why we started this course.

I'd like to know what you think about the instances above, and if you have any explanation for why you responded in the way that you did in each of those circumstances - I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Hi. I will answer those questions as follows:

CASSIOPEIA edited out the tournament link, for the organizer's official website section about the tournament, which is for promotional purpose only and very likely to be erased afterwards. The tournament link erased is the BWF's official tournament record and is highly reliable. So yes, what I did can be said as rude but for a reason, since as I saw in his contributions, he is not usually edit a badminton tournament article. It is kind of a consensus.

I'm sure that you are right in that CASS doesn't regularly edit badminton-related articles - rather, they're a prolific new page patroller, and review hundreds of articles about all sorts of different subjects. When CASS first looked at the article, there were zero independent sources - just two affiliated sources. Another patroller might have draftified the article, or even nominated it for deletion, but CASS recognised that it was a notable subject, and went to the trouble of finding a couple of independent sources to demonstrate notability - you reverted that edit. The external links thing is a side issue - if you thought the external links were valid, the correct response would have been to thank CASS for the additional sources, and reinsert the external link, with a note on the talk page saying something along the lines of 'it's standard practise to have two external links on a badminton competition article - see these examples...' - not to revert someone who objectively improved the page. And certainly not to insult them because they made a couple of mistakes in the fields for the refs they added - that's downright hostile, and is a borderline personal attack.

@Girth Summit: He reverted my edit about adding the link here.

This is CASS's first edit to the page - they add two refs, remove a redlink, and remove one of the ELs. You immediately revert them, with an edit summary that makes little sense: It has been like this for any badminton series - really, most badminton series articles are devoid of independent references? Why revert, instead of adding the external link back in with an edit summary along the lines of "Reinstating external link, most badminton series articles have a link to the relevant website". CASS then reverted your revert, explaining in their edit summary that the references were necessary to demonstrate notability - which is absolutely correct - and you were rude in both of your subsequent edit summaries, first calling them reckless, and then querying their mental health because they made a mistake with some of the fields in the refs. Seriously? This is a collaborative project, CASS was literally trying to help make sure that the article wasn't nominated for deletion by another reviewer, and you revert them and then are rude to them? Can't you see what's wrong with your attitude there?

To Sakiv, I am sorry. It was because of my edits were reverted back for no reason. CMIIW, I forgot about this one. About Bbb23, I only asked him to dig into Qzxv5 (talk · contribs), whose edits are completely bias towards Joko Widodo, whether he is a sock to Jlocs (talk · contribs) since both edited only about the same issue. He rejected to even look at it so I requested the CU again. I did not even know if that light request was considered harassing. As I wrote: "because this user has already made several completely bias pro-Muhammad Rizieq Shihab view such as in Indonesia–Saudi Arabia relations (1, 2). Rizieq's foul-mouth might not known outside Indonesia but he is known here in Indonesia to have called for non-Muslim persecutions." But after that harassment accusation, I stopped requesting CU for this user to this day.

Sakiv left you two messages, you didn't reply to either of them; my point about Bbb23 isn't about how the situation got started, it's the fact that you had reverted one of their actions, they told you about it on your talk page, and you didn't reply. We went through this during the course - sometimes you will inevitably make mistakes when reverting, that's understandable, but when it happens you have to respond to their enquiry, and apologise where necessary. I realise this is a volunteer project, and I can't tell you what to do, but if you can't keep track of and respond to enquiries on your talk page you ought not to be reverting people.

Wait, is it about User talk:Flix11#Vandalism warnings by Struway2? If so, I have given my answer at User talk:Flix11#December 2019. Struway probably does not know that infobox stats on footballers only applies to league stats, while the IP addresses always either change to total stats or merely vandalizing.

I don't see how your answer addresses the point. You gave out a 4im warning for changing the attendance figures on a football game - why? We covered this way up at the start of this course - a 4im warning is for egregious vandalism, something like adding racist abuse or unsourced allegations of sexual abuse into a BLP. I don't understand why you went for a 4im.

- @Girth Summit: Please pinpoint the attendance edit. I completely forgot it.

these consecutive edits were the only edits from the IP on the page - you issued a 4im warning. I don't see a history of recent vandalism from the IP - TBH, I can't even see how a level 1 vandalism edit was warranted, more like a level 1 'unsourced content' warning, unless there is some background I'm unaware of? (And if there is background, you didn't explain it to Struway at the time when they queried your revert.)

Thank you for your attention and I will ease my warnings. Flix11 (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Flix11 - I've added some comments in each of the situations above. Please take time to think about these points before responding, this really is important. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Some further comments above Flix11 GirthSummit _(blether) 10:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Flix11 - I don't know whether you were intending to respond further to the points above, but I've taken the liberty of going through your recent contributions, and I did not find any other examples of obviously inappropriate level 4 warnings in the last couple of weeks - a couple perhaps where I might have given a level 3 instead, but nothing too bad. Since this doesn't appear to be an on-going problem, I'm just going to ask you to remember what we've talked about here, and try only to give 4im in the most serious circumstances. I do think you should have treated CASSIOPEIA with a lot more respect - new page patrollers do an important but largely thankless task, and giving them aggro for trying to improve a poorly referenced page isn't acceptable, even if you didn't agree with all their changes.

While reviewing your recent contributions, I noticed that you don't seem to be doing much active recent changes patrolling - it seems that you are mostly sticking to your area of interest (sports pages), and occasionally reverting vandalism when you come across it in that arena. There is nothing wrong with that of course - we're all volunteers, and are all free to do whatever interests us on the project - so I don't mean to imply any criticism by pointing it out. Nevertheless, the final exam questions have been up for a couple of months now, and you haven't starting answering them, so I'm going to conclude that your interest in this course has waned. I suggest that we draw a line under this and close this course now - I would take you off the list of trainees, and mark this page as inactive. Do you feel differently? Best GirthSummit _(blether) 17:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I am sorry, I just moved out to a new city and have been busier than ever for the past two weeks (having changed my UBX about "living at" from Surabaya to Jakarta). I will finish the test within a week. Is it OK? Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

OK Flix11 - I'll cut you a deal. You apologise to CASS on their talk page for your rudeness, and we can finish this course together - fair enough? Congratulations on the move by the way, Jakarta must be an exciting place to live. I've never been, but I spent a couple of nights on Bali once, joining and disembarking from a boat doing a pipe route survey in the Bali Sea - beautiful place. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Final Exam

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

Part 1

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

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?
If this is the first edit I would consider it as a test edit, revert it, and warn with uw-test1. If it is restored, I would revert again and escalate to uw-test2 and so on. If it is continued even after final warning, I would report to WP:AIV.
A user adds their signature to an article after once being given a {{Uw-articlesig}} warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?
If it is a newcomer or an anonymous user, I would leave a message explaining that articles should not be signed and directing to WP:SIG. If the contributions and talk pages of that user indicated a clear inclination to repeated disruption, I would start the escalating series of warnings using uw-disruptive1/2/3/4 and report to WP:AIV if continued.
A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?
I would vandal-revert and warn using uw-vandal1. I would escalate if they don't stop and after final warning I would report at WP:AIV.
A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
Same as #1.
A user removes sourced information from an article, with the summary 'this is wrong'. First time, and after that? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions?
Uw-delete1 and escalating if necessary. Go to WP:AIV if 5th offense committed.

Part 2

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

A user blanks Cheesecake.
uw-blank1 and escalating if still goes on.
A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
uw-attempt2 and escalating if still goes on.
A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
uw-efsummary.
A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
uw-vandalism1 and escalating if still goes on.
A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
uw-delete1 and escalating if still goes on.
A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
uw-test1 and escalating if still goes on.
A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
uw-test1 (I guess) and escalating if still goes on.
A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
uw-biog1 or uw-unsourced1 and escalating if still goes on.
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
uw-delete4im, go to WP:AIV if still goes on.
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
Go to WP:AIV right away.
A user blanks your userpage and replaced it with 'I hate this user' (you have had a number of problems with this user in the past).
uw-harass series and later to WP:AIV and/or WP:ANI if still goes on.
A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
If only once, maybe uw-test1. If more, uw-image1 and escalating if still goes on.

Part 3

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

Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
Db-g11.
Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
Db-a7.
Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
Db-a1 or a7.
A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
Db-a11.
Fuck Wiki!
Db-g3.

Part 4

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

TheMainStreetBand
uw-coi-username would be enough.
Fartypants
I am not really sure. If it makes positive edits, maybe let go.
Brian's Bot
Fake bot, report to WP:UAA.
sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
Direct to WP:USERNAME.
WikiAdmin
WP:MISLEADNAME. Report to WP:UAA.
12:12, 23 June 2012
WP:MISLEADNAME. Report to WP:UAA.
PMiller
uw-coi-username would be enough.
OfficialJustinBieber
Report to WP:UAA.

Part 5

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)?
Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
Where and how should an edit war be reported?
Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?