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

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

How to use this page

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

The CVUA curriculum

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

Communication

Counter-vandalism work can result in very large watchlists, which can make it more difficult to monitor pages using that alone. For this reason, I will ping you whenever I update this page with some feedback or a new task; I would also ask you to ping me when you have completed a task, so that I get a notification telling me that it's ready for review. See WP:PING for details on how to do this if you aren't sure.Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

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.




Good faith and vandalism

When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. While it is often necessary to revert such edits, we treat them differently from vandalism, so it is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the tasks in this section.

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



Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. You don't need to revert the example you find, and I am happy for you to use previous undos in your edit history if you wish. Place diffs below




A note about Twinkle

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

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

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



Warning and reporting

When you use Twinkle to warn a user, you have a number of options to choose from: you can select the kind of warning (for different offences), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4, for increasing severity). Knowing which warning to issue and what level is very important. Further information can be found at WP:WARN and WP:UWUL.

Please answer the following questions
Why do we warn users?
When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it? (Hint - read the link before answering!)
What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?


Blanking

Sometimes during your patrolling for vandalism, you'll come across an edit that removes most, if not all, of the content from an article or section. It's easy to simply revert, warn, and continue on, but actually, these kind of edits usually require even more attention than the average malicious edit. Accidentally reverting helpful blanking is one of the main pitfalls that newer vandalism patrollers can fall into, so in order to avoid this situation, please read the following pages and answer the questions.

Before you answer these questions, it may be helpful to read WP:BLANK, WP:CR, and this user essay.

How could a blanking edit be helpful?

What are some of the main things to look for in an edit that blanks a lot of text?

Please find three examples of an edit that blanks content, and explain why they are either good or bad.



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 diff comment
2 diff comment
3 diff comment
4 diff comment
5 diff comment
6 diff comment
7 diff comment
8 diff comment
9 diff comment
10 diff comment

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?


In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?


In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?


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


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


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?





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.
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.
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.
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.)

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?

Scenario 6

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

Scenario 7

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

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?

Revision Deletion and Oversight

Please read WP:Revdel and WP:Oversight.

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

If you believe an edit needs to be revision deleted, how would you request that?
If you believe that it's so serious it needs oversight, how would you request that?

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.
BGates
LMedicalCentre
G1rth Summ1t
JoeAtBurgerKing
JoeTheSysop
James-the-Chorizard
D0naldTrump
FuckAllYouAssholes
Oshwaah
😜

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?
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)?




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?
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.)



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.

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.
Hopefully this will never happen, but it does occasionally. If you accidentally use rollback, what should you do?
Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?

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).
  1. A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article, having never edited before. Would you treat it differently if they had done the same thing once before?
  2. A user adds their signature to an article after once being given a {{Uw-articlesig}} warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?
  3. A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?
  4. A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
  5. A user removes sourced information from an article, with the summary 'this is wrong'. First time, and after that? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions?

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.
  1. A user blanks Cheesecake.
  2. A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
  3. A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
  4. A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
  5. A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
  6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
  7. A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
  8. A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
  9. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
  10. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
  11. A user blanks your userpage and replaced it with 'I hate this user' (you have had a number of problems with this user in the past).
  12. A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.

Part 3

What CSD tag you would put on the following articles? (The content below represents the entire content of the article).
  1. Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
  2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
  3. Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
  4. A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
  5. Fuck Wiki!

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).
  1. TheMainStreetBand
  2. Fartypants
  3. Brian's Bot
  4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
  5. WikiAdmin
  6. 12:12, 23 June 2012
  7. PMiller
  8. OfficialJustinBieber

Part 5

Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.
  1. Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
  2. Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
  3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
  4. Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
  5. Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
  6. Where and how should an edit war be reported?
  7. Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?


Alt 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).
  1. A user adds 'What does this button do?' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
  2. A user inserts '###################################' into an article, having never edited before. Would you treat it differently if they had done the same thing once before?
  3. A user deletes the first three paragraphs from an article, without leaving an edit summary. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?
  4. 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?
  5. A user removes sourced information from a BLP, with the summary 'this is wrong'. First time, and after that? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions?

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.
  1. A user blanks Pasta.
  2. A user blanks a section of Cricket without giving an explanation.
  3. A user adds random characters to Aardvark.
  4. A user adds 'Donald is the best!' to United States.
  5. A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Donald Trump.
  6. A user puts "I HATE CHEESE!" on Edam (cheese).
  7. A user adds 'and he was seen dropping litter in Hyde Park' to Hugh Grant.
  8. A new user adds curse words to your user page (this is their first edit).
  9. A user blanks Dell, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
  10. A user blanks Dell, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.

Part 3

What CSD tag you would put on the following articles? (The content below represents the entire content of the article).
  1. Tim Spinks is the fastest runner in Park Grove School, and won the house cup three years running.
  2. NCPP Delivery gives fast, efficient delivery service - go to npcc.com for more info!
  3. Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
  4. The Island of Orkvanderland is an island three hundred miles off the coast of Western Australia, inhabited by orks.
  5. Terry is the a great singer.
  6. Fuck all you assholes!

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).
  1. TheCosmicPatrollers
  2. Poopsniffer
  3. StopVandalBot
  4. Joshtheadmin
  5. poiuytrewassdfhukjhgffghjghhkhgfhdrhjjv9876543
  6. GeoffBarnes
  7. JeffBridgesFan

Part 5

Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.
  1. Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
  2. Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
  3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
  4. Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
  5. Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
  6. Where and how should an edit war be reported?
  7. Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?