User:Pahunkat/CVUA/Kamilalibhat

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

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

How to use this page

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

Once you graduate, I will copy this page into your userspace so you have a record of your training and a reference for the future.

Curriculum

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

Communication

Counter-vandalism work can result in very large watchlists, which can make it more difficult to monitor pages using that alone. For this reason, I will ping you whenever I update this page with some feedback or a new task; I would also ask you to ping me when you have completed a task, so that I get a notification telling me that it's ready for review. See WP:PING for details on how to do this if you aren't sure. Pahunkat (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The start

Gadgets

Twinkle

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

Redwarn

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

Huggle

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

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

@Pahunkat: I have enabled the Twinkle as well as RedWarn. Thank you. -- Kamilalibhat (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Great Kamilalibhat! I hope it's working fine. There's more to do below. Have you been trying them out yet in recent changes/abuselog patrols? Pahunkat (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: I don't know how to use them. I'm still reading about them. I will ping you here when I will start doing so. -- Kamilalibhat (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Kamilalibhat - That's fine! You're new to counter vandalism work, and there's no rush or deadline to complete the course. Take your time, and ask any questions if you have them Pahunkat (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat I have started to try the tool Redwarn but I don't know how to use Twinkle.-- Kamilalibhat (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Kamilalibhat, see WP:TW. If you look at the diff revision page, there are three rollback links for the latest revision. For all other functions, see the dropdown menu to the left of the search bar with the letters TW, and select an option. Pahunkat (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI, in recent changes there is the option to filter edits if you click the three lines (menu option) below the active filters bar. If you select "likely bad faith", you'll find some vandalism within a few minutes. Pahunkat (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Finding the vandals

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

Good faith and vandalism

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

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

Those edits which are unhelpful to the article and are not vandalism are good faith edits. Whereas those edits which are intended to destroy or damage the article/page such as blanking the article without proper reason, removing articles for deletion tags, etc are vandalism edits. Good faith edits are not intended to harm an article but vandalism edits do. Good faith edits are made commonly by newcomers as they don't know about much about Wikipedia policies but vandalism edits may be made by anyone, who want to harm a page.

Y I would AGF the first time in the removal of deletion tags and only consider it vandalism in cases where they persistently remove it after numerous warnings. Note that you can't tell vandalism and good-faith edits from the experience of the user alone. The key thing to note here is, if in doubt, assume good faith since most editors are here to improve the encyclopedia.

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

If a new comer makes a mistake in good faith, it is important to not to bite them because every experienced editor was once a new comer. New comers are important and valuable to the Wikipedia because if they stay, sooner or later they become experienced enough to share the knowledge. We should not bite them, we should teach them about the policies. By teaching and motivating them to stay, we can increase the sum of knowledge available free to the world.

Y If you bite the newcomers, they may leave because of it.

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

Type	Diff	Trainer's comment
Good-faith edit	[[1]]	Y Seems like inappropriate commentary in the article from a non-notable person, so you're right to apply WP:AGF
Good-faith edit	[2]	Y This is probably a test edit, no reason to treat as vandalism
Good-faith edit	[3]	Y You're right to WP:AGF and treat as a test edit
Vandalism	special:diff/1002392860	Y If it was one or the other it could be a test edit, but here they've removed it in two separate edits which suggests it is not
Vandalism	special:diff/1002417843	Y BLP vios
Vandalism	special:diff/998661546	Y Definitely vandalism

A note about Redwarn and Twinkle

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

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

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

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

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

Kamilalibhat, see above. Ping me below when you're done. Above all, you need to get out to recent changes and see if you can find some vandalism, since you have no experience in counter-vandalism work as of now. Good luck! Pahunkat (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, I'm done. We may go through the next session. Kamilalibhat (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Kamilalibhat, good job. See my comments above, most things are fine. Just remember to AGF if in doubt. One more thing, I see here you warned the user for removal of content - a warning for test edits may have been more relevant. Onto the next section we go - remember to do RC patrolling when you can, you will need more Counter-vandalism experience before I can pass you through CVUA. Pahunkat (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

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

Please answer the following questions

I think warning users is good for Wikipedia. By warning users, we are guiding them about how to do editing. If we warn users, they may not do the same thing again in future. In my opinion warning users reduces the vandalism edits as they will not do vandalism again and they may warn other users if they noticed vandalism anywhere.

Y It's often hard to distinguish between good-faith and bad-faith edits. By warning users, we politely tell them what was wrong with their edit, and good-faith users will hopefully improve

If the user has made many vandalism edits and has been warned before, we may use 4im warning. I think we may also use 4im warning, if the user does extreme vandalism.

Y Serious BLP vios / vandalism, multiple vandalism edits (not just 2 or 3) with no/little warnings.

Yes, some of the templates should be substituted when placing on the pages because substituting makes wikitext visible and gives newcomers an opportunity to learn it's use. Substitution is performed by placing the code subst: between the braces, before the template name like {{subst:medicine}}.

Y substitute templates on all talk pages

If the user who has received level 4 or 4im warning vandalizes again, we should request the user to be blocked. The request could be made at WP:AIV.

Y

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

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff	Trainer's Comment
1	Special:diff/1003110185	I thought this was disruptive editing, but I was not sure, so I assumed good faith.	Y disruptive editing, probably not a test - issue a uw-vandalism warning
2	[4]	He used Wikipedia for promotional purpose. That's why I reverted his edits.	Y Revdel'd so I can't see the diff, I'll assume it's good
3	[5]	This was disruptive editing, so needed to bbe reverted.	Y
4	[6]	This was disruptive and unfair editing.	Question: - what do you mean by 'unfair' editing? Unfair editing may be defined as a type of disruptive editing in which the editor adds false information to the article.
5	[7]	This was content blanking/removal. So I reverted this edit.	Y
6	[8]	He removed content without leaving the summary. So I restored.	Y
7	[9]	This was surely vandalism ashe added defamatory content	Y vandalism
8	[10]	He vandalised many times so I issued level 4 warning.	N The edit needed to be reverted since it was an unsourced claim, but that was the user's first edit - the others were made by other IPs. A level 4 warning is inappropriate in this case, use a level 1 or 2.
9	[11]]	This was disruptive editing and addition of defamatory content.	Y This is disruptive editing, but I'd question the use of 'defamatory' to describe the edit
10	[12]	He blanked the whole article saying,"Wrong legal implications. The case as per high court proved innocence." Instead of blanking he may have added more content related to his innocence.	N Looks like a content dispute

Kamilalibhat, see above for the next task. Once again, any questions ask me below, and ping me when you're done. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, I'm done. You may have a look at my answers and go through the next session. - Kamil Ali Bhat 🍥 ( talk) 16:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Kamilalibhat, could you please clarify an answer above? Pahunkat (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat:

Done - Kamil Ali Bhat (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Kamilalibhat, be careful with your terminology here. Using the term "unfair editing" seems to imply content disputes or ownership of articles. Disruptive editing would be a better term to use - see WP:DISRUPTIVE. Pahunkat (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, Noted! - Kamil Ali Bhat (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Pahunkat, when will you assign another task? I'm waiting. Don't you think large amount of time has passed since I submitted my previous task? - Kamil Ali Bhat (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Kamilalibhat, I'd be willing to set the task now, but for now I'm just seeing the results of CVU work you've been doing. Keep doing RC patrolling though, so I can be sure that you get the section above. See below. Pahunkat (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2021 (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 RedWarn menu (on the right-hand side, the RPP option) to request page protection. Twinkle can be used to request speedy deletion (the TW menu next to the search bar on top, the CSD option) and also request page protection (the RPP option on the menu).

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

When there is heavy and persistent vandalism by unregistered IP's and the accounts that are not confirmed.

Y and content disputes between non-autoconfirmed users/IPs, and persistent sockpuppetry

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

When there is persistent vandalism, violations of biographies of living persons and insertion of content that violates copyright.

Y Persistent vandalism/blp vios, but perhaps not so persistent so we can allow unregistered and non-autoconfirmed users to submit edits

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

When there is vandalism or content dispute between extended confirmed users, a page can be fully protected.

Y That's the main thing, there's one other reason (history-only reviews) but it isn't applicable to CVU

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

When any bad page have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. Also, when a single user creates a page many times (even after sysops delete it due to some reason), then it may be 'salted' temporarily or permanently. Y

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

Talk pages are rarely protected. However if the talk page is vandalised or if the user is abused persistently or I can say harassed, then the talk page may be semi-protected.

Y but only for short periods of time

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

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

A page can be speedy deleted if it comes under any of the criteria of the speedy deletion. Some of the criterias are given below:

WP:G10 for the pages that harass, intimidate or threaten the subject,
WP:G1 for the pages that consist entirely of content with meaning, and
WP:G11 for the pages that are purely advertising and promotional.

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

[13] Pahunkat, Task complete. Please review it.

Speedy deletion examples

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

Scenario 1

A user with the username "BobSucks" creates an article called "John Smith" that contains solely the following text:

John Smith is the worst elementary school teacher on the planet.

Tag for speedy deletion (WP:G10)

Y Attack page

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.

As it is promotional, falls under WP:G11 criteria. Report user to UAA Y

Scenario 3

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

'''Edward Gordon''' (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 5,250 subscribers on YouTube.

I don't think this article is important enough to stay on Wikipedia. He has not enough publication or subscribers. As a result, I will tag under WP:A7.

Y and note that just having lots of subscribers does not guarantee notability, notability is established by coverage in independent and reliable sources

Scenario 4

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

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

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

A:Tag under WP:G10 as this page defames Bazz Ward.

N G10 only applies to negative unsourced BLPs and attack pages. This doesn't appear to be either.

Question: The subject of the article isn't notable. Could you make it into a redirect? Search terms from the article.

A:Yes, I will make it into a redirect to The Nice. Y

Scenario 5

A user creates an article that was clearly copied and pasted directly from another website, which states "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom of it. Would your answer be the same if it didn't state "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom?

A:Yes, my reaction will be same as I have read somewhere on the Wikipedia to not to copy-paste any material instead write that in your own words. I will tag under WP:G12. Y

Scenario 6

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

A:Tag under WP:A2. Alternatively, I may add a the template {{Not English}} and list the page at WP:PNT.

Y Note that A2 only applies if the article exists on another wiki. Else, you should add the template.

Scenario 7

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

A:Tag under WP:A3.

N Tag under G7

Scenario 8

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

Jlakjrelekajroi3j192809jowejfldjoifu328ur3pieisgreat

How would this scenario be different if the page was created in draftspace? How about in article space, or in a user sandbox?

A: If in the sandbox or user page or I would warn the user and if in the article or draftspace I will tag it for deletion under WP:G1.

Y Everything to do with which pages to speedy deletion tagging is right, but there's no reason to warn the user

Once again, once you are finished, or if you have any questions, ping me below :-) Pahunkat (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Pahunkat, I was a bit busy to gain my old account back. I have started to attach my tasks and to read the policies. Sorry for my laziness! –Kamil Ali 09:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem Kamilalibhat! Which account should I be pinging from now on? Pahunkat (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, this one 🙂 –Kamil Ali 09:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, I have attached the tasks. Now, you may review them and set the next task for me. Thanks! –Kamil Ali 10:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Kamilalibhat, I'll mark it now - did you find a page to tag for speedy deletion? Pahunkat (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, no I haven't but when I will tag any page for speedy deletion I will certainly attach the diff above. –Kamil Ali 11:16, 8 February 2021 (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, Wikimedia Foundation, etc), usernames that impersonate other people (either famous people, or other Wikipedians' usernames), or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.
Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.

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

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

Fine username.

Y In most circumstances it's fine, unless they're editing the article Bill Gates or related articles

Misleading username. Report to WP:UAA.

Y Misleading (impersonation). This is a real-life example (by an LTA), see Pakunhat

Misleading username. Report to WP:UAA. Y

Fine username. Y

If they had admin right, I won't do anything. If they didn't had, so I will report to WP:UAA. Y

Misleading username. Report to WP:UAA.

Y Once again, impersonation

Promotional username as per WP:ORGNAME. Report to WP:UAA.

Y Though make sure that the user has edited promotionally before reporting. If the user edits about an unrelated topic non-promotionally, consider dropping a warning at their talk page instead.

Disruptive and offensive username. Report to WP:UAA. Y

A real name, could be harassed and abused. I will advice them to request their name to be changed at WP:RENAME.

N Real names are permitted. There's no reason to assume this isn't the user's real name. However, if they edit an article about a person named Christopher Smith you should report to UAA

Misleading username because Oswah is an admin on Wikipedia. Report to WP:UAA.

Y I assume you meant Oshwah

Non script username. Report to WP:UAA. Y

Disruptive username. Report to WP:UAA. Y

Kamilalibhat, please see the above and my comments (though it looks like you're on to it already!). Once again, when you're finished ping me below. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, I didn't get anything about the above mentioned username, "Christopher Smith"? Who's he? –Kamil Ali 15:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Kamilalibhat That is the username of a user. That's all I can give you I'm afraid - does it violate any parts of the username policy? Pahunkat (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat,

Done. I have submitted my tasks! –Kamil Ali 15:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Kamilalibhat - Marked, please see above! Also, there's a follow-up question in the previous section - could you complete that please before we move on? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat:

Done.–Kamil Ali 17:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Kamilalibhat, I'm putting this on hold temporarily because I've just been made aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kamilalibhat - I'd recommend responding there. See WP:SOCK for the relevant policies. With luck this should be handled quickly. Pahunkat (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Emergencies

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

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

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

I should contact Wikimedia Foundation via email emergency@wikimedia.org and then inform any admin privately via email or IRC. I will include the diff or the name of the page where the threat of harm was made. Y

What should you do if an edit looks like a threat of harm, but you suspect it may just be an empty threat (i.e. someone joking around)?

I should treat all the claims seriously. I will contact the Wikimedia Foundation and then an admin and include the diff in my information. Y

Kamilalibhat, We're back - please see above. Just a heads-up that you're coming to a section where you will may request the rollback right once we complete, but in order to do so you will need to demonstrate your knowledge of what we have learnt so far by doing a lots of CVUA work/RC patrolling in the run up. Once again, ping me when done or if you have any questions. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat,

Done. Let's move to the other task. –Kammil (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users

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

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Because, recognition is the thing they want by vandalising Wikipedia. If we engage with them, they keep trolling and vandalising. Engaging with them is like their food. But if we deny them, they no longer get fun and makes them feel bored to do so.

Y Some vandals (especially LTAs) live off attention. Depriving them of any recognition makes it less "fun" for them to vandalize. Pahunkat (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Kamilalibhat - that was good, please see the next section above. Pahunkat (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat,

Task complete. Looking forward for my another task. –Kammil (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Kamilalibhat - the next section should be about rollback. However, since most of your recent work has been on content creation, I'd recommend the following - We have the monitoring period where you can rack up some counter-vandalism patrols, then we can do the rollback section and you can apply for the permission, and after that comes the final exam. How does that sound? Pahunkat (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, I don't have any problems. Whatever seems good, just go for that. Moreover, I'm your student and I have to obey. Ok. Let's go for monitoring period. –Kammil (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Kamilalibhat - you don't have to strictly follow what I say, I just give guidance. Anyway, I'll put up the monitoring period section, in this monitoring period get as much CVU work done as you can. I'll put the rollback section beneath that so you can see what's coming up. Best, Pahunkat (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Monitoring period

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

5 day period - Starts 10:15 UTC, 11 Feb 2021

Please post any questions below (but before the rollback section). Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, can I attach my tasks in the rollback section? Since I had requested these rights before, I had read WP:ROLLBACK before. –Kammil (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome to answer the questions there now Kamilalibhat, but I would recommend that you have the monitoring period first before applying for the permission. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, yes I was just thinking about answering these questions. I won't apply now. I want to apply after monitoring period. –Kammil (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, monitoring period ends today. Hope I have done well. Now, have all the tasks ended or still some are pending? –Kammil (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Kamilalibhat - given that the monitoring period has ended, I’ll go through your contributions in depth as soon as possible (probably by the end of today). Did anything come up that you would like to discuss with me, or is there anything in particular I need to look at? Pahunkat (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing Pahunkat. –Kammil ⟨talk⟩ 15:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Kamilalibhat, I went though your some of your recent reverts (you did lots during the monitoring period, well done!), most reverts were fine but the following stood out:

Here you reverted an edit by an IP, before leaving them a warning for adding unreferenced information to a BLP. Whilst I agree the edit needed to be reverted because of WP:NPOV issues, why the warning for unreferenced info?
This would probably have been better off as an unexplained removal of content revert
When you make reverts such as this, always leave an edit summary - this isn't obvious vandalism/policy violation, but I take it you know a bit about the subject?
For this revert you left a waring about mass changes without consensus - why this warning? Could one for introducing factual errors be more relevant here (I'm not familiar with the subject of this article).

Also, if you click the three dots on the RedWarn revert menu there's the option to leave the edit summary "rollback test edits" among others - I see you reverted a few test edits in redwarn with the summary "reverted good-faith edits". In general, if clicking the good-faith or blue rollback you should always leave an edit summary (this can be short, for example rvv for revert vandalism) (N.B. Not finished yet, just saving the changes). I think we should be good for you to take the final exam now. Pahunkat (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Before I forget, the speedy deletion tag you placed on the draft was declined because it was an A-prefixed tag on a draft. A- tags are for articles only, G- tags are general criteria for any namespace, U- tags are for user namespace only, C- tags are for categories only, P- tags for portals only and R- tags are for redirects only. Could you try speedy deletion tagging another page again? We an continue without it for now. Pahunkat (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, yes I will try to find another page for speedy deletion. Now we may go through the final exam. –Kammil ⟨talk⟩ 05:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Rollback

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

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

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

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

It should be used to revert obvious vandalism, own userspace edits, accidentally made edits and widespread edits made made misguided editor (here we need to explain the reason on the user's talk). Y

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

If it happens, I may follow the rollback and make a dummy edit as described at WP:Rollback#Accidental use of rollback and leave an edit summary saying "accidental use of rollback". On the other hand, I may also use Redwarn or twinkle to revert the edit. Y

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

No, not at all, I would use twinkle to leave an edit summary. Y

Pahunkat, Task complete. –Kammil (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Final Exam

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

Part 1

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

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?

For the first time, I will assume good faith and warn user of {{uw-test1}} , but if they kept doing, I will assume it as vandalism and report to WP:AIV. Y per below

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?

I would give a {{uw-test2}} or {{uw-disruptive2}}, but if they kept adding their signature, I will assume it as vandalism and report to WP:AIV. Y per below

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?

For the first time I will assume good faith, but if they kept doing after that I will be mark it as vandalism. Y per below

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

For the first time, I will assume good faith and leave a warning ({{uw-test1}}. But if they kept doing after multiple warnings, I will report to WP:AIV Y per below

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?

I would give {{uw-delete1}} warning and ask the user to raise a consensus at the talk page of the article. But if they kept removing, I will report to WP:AIV. Y per below

Question: For all the above you said you'd report to AIV - when, and after how many warnings?
If they kept vandalising after level 4 or 4im warnings, then I will report to AIV.

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-delete1}} Y

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

{{uw-vandalism1}} N {{uw-attempt1}}

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

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

{{uw-vandalism1}} Y

A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.

{{uw-delete1}} Y

A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

{{uw-test1}} Y

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

{{uw-npov1}} N Not NPOV since there's no mentioned of a person called 'tim' in the article, probably best to issue a test/vandalism warning depending on their contrib history

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

{{uw-unsourced1}} is the info will be unsourced. Y

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

{{uw-delete4}} or {{uw-delete4im}} Y Only use 4im here

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

I will report the user to WP:AIV. Y

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).

I will remove the text they entered and ask help from WP:AN Y WP:ANI probably a better venue

A user adds a spam link to Horoscope, no previous wawarning

{{uw-spam1}} Y

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

{{uw-afd3}} Y

A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.

{{uw-test1}} Y

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)!

WP:G11 Y

Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

WP:A7 as there is no indication of importance. Y

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

WP:A1 Y

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

WP:G3 as hoax. Y

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

WP:G3 as vandalism. Y

He is an olympic swimmer

WP:A1 Y

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

Shared username. Report to UAA. Y

SUBSCRIBETOKURZGESAGT

Promotional username. Report to UAA Y

Brian's Bot

If it is a bot, then I would do nothing. But if it is not, then I will report to UAA. Y

sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

Disruptive username. Report to UAA. Y These tend to be vandals as well

WikiAdmin

If the person has sysop rights then I would do nothing. On the other hand, if he didn't had these right, then I will report to UAA. Y

Coles' Staff

Shared username. Report to UAA. Y implies shared use

12:12, 23 June 2012

Misleading username because it is like a timestamp. Report to UAA. Y

PMiller

Fine username. Y Real names are permitted, however if they were editing Patrick Miller (basketball) or similar you would need to report to UAA as a misleading so their identity can be verified

RealDonaldTrump

Misleading username. Report to UAA. Y

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)?

If the vandalism is obvious, we may get in an edit war.

N If the vandalism is obvious, 3RR does not apply and you are not technically in an "edit war". If it is not so obvious, then consider engaging the editor in discussion as 3RR could apply and you could get into an edit war.

Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?

They should be reported to WP:AIV. Y

Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

WP:AIV N WP:ANI

Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?

WP:UAA Y

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

WP:AN/I Y

Where and how should an edit war be reported?

WP:AN3 Y

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

WP:BLP/N Y

Kamilalibhat, please see the above. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat,

Task complete. Much excited about the results. Thank you, Kammil ⟨talk⟩ 13:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Kamilalibhat, just a question to do on part 1 before I can complete the marking. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat,done! I answered.Kammil ⟨talk⟩ 14:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Completion

Kamilalibhat, 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 a score of 87.5%. Well done! Pahunkat (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.