User:Girth Summit/CVUA/Masumrezarock100

Hello Masumrezarock100, and welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your academy page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible in your answers, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me at my talk page.

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

How to use this page

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

The CVUA curriculum

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

Communication

Counter-vandalism work can result in very large watchlists, which can make it more difficult to monitor pages using that alone. For this reason, I will ping you whenever I update this page with some feedback or a new task; I would also ask you to ping me when you have completed a task, so that I get a notification telling me that it's ready for review. See WP:PING for details on how to do this if you aren't sure. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The start[edit]

Twinkle[edit]

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.

I have enabled it. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 09:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit Just for pinging you. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 09:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Good, and thanks for the ping.GirthSummit _(blether) 09:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism[edit]

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

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

@Girth Summit: I would say vandalism is entirely intenting to destroy an encyclopedia page. Good faith edits are intented for improving a wiki page. While some people's good faith edits are wrong usually not knowledge based (original research). I would look into other users' edits if I am not knowledgeble about the subject. Then I would match the differences between their edits and revert the new edit if necessary. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 10:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You are right, the difference is intent. If an editor intends to improve the encyclopedia, the edit is not vandalism, even if the editor is completely wrong. It can be difficult to judge intent, and very often dubious edits will come from an account with no previous edits to help guide you, so the rule where you are not sure is to assume good faith - only label edits which are clearly vandalism as such. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Is it okay if I use previous edits that weren't reverted by me? If so I am adding some diffs. I will add the rest of the diffs later.

[1] - The editor added personal opinion. Violation of WP:NPOV in good faith.

[2] - Adding unhelpful reviews(I think).

[3] - Adding unsourced genres in good faith. Violation of WP:Verifiability. This type of edits can lead readers to conclusions.

[1] Vandalism or bad faith. Blanking the sections and removing helpful informations.

[2] Bad faith edit. The editor tried to hide it's edit from the filter.

[3] Content removal without an explanation. So it is vandalism.

@Girth Summit: I have finished my task. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 10:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Masumrezarock100, I note that you're editing on mobile at the moment. The mobile diffs are a bit tricky for me to read - it might be easier to do this when you're in front of a computer. The best way for you to provide diffs is to display the diff in your browser, and then copy the URL and paste it inside square brackets - like this. Then I can go straight to the edit you're talking about.

Now, looking at the edits you've linked to above, I agree about the first three good faith edits; however, I'm not sure about the vandalism ones.

High School DxD This is removal of content without explanation - we can't tell anything about the user's intent from that. It's possible that the IP editor thought the information was wrong, or it was excessively detailed, or the material was improperly sourced; we assume good faith, and do not treat this as vandalism.
Gravitaxis I don't understand what you mean about hiding the edit from the filter - this looks like random characters - it could just be someone testing whether they can edit a page. Unless there's something I'm missing, I'd AGF and call that a test edit not vandalism.

I meant they wanted to vandalise the page without being caught by the edit filter.(hiding vandalism between good edits) Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 11:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Mens Health This one, on its own merits, is blanking - but that isn't necessarily vandalism. The two edits made by the IP prior to this make me think that it probably is vandalism, but blanking on its own isn't enough to say for sure.

So, I'd like you to have another go here - try looking at the Recent changes page, with filters set to show likely bad faith edits - you'll find some real vandalism soon enough! Post the diffs of some below. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

[1] - Clearly bad faith.

[2] - Totally vandalism

[3] - Removal of citation and relevant information

@Girth Summit: I have finished. Thanks for the link. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 12:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Masumrezarock100 - I'm afraid I still can't agree. The first one appeared to be a good faith attempt to improve the page - they changes were unsourced, but it's not obvious vandalism. The second one was meaningless characters - as before, that could be a test edit. The third one is borderline - they removed several chunks of text from the page, as well as adding a nonsense word - but I'd probably treat as a test edit rather than vandalism.

Let me show you a few actual vandalism diffs from the recent changes page...

This is vandalism. It's not obscene, but someone has gone to the bother of writing a sentence that hangs together grammatically, but makes no sense in terms of the subject of the article. They've also been warned about it already on their talk page, so they ought to know that it's not OK.
This is also vandalism. Again, no obscenity, but the user has repeatedly inserted comments about someone called 'Luci', who is presumably the editor's friend, and how she feels about this character. Kids messing about, but there's no way we could assume that they are trying to improve the article. Once again, they have been warned already, and are persisting. (The username is also a bit of a giveaway - it sounds like a personal attack, which is in breach of our username policy).
This is obviously vandalism - unfortunately, you see a lot of this sort of thing.

Can you see the difference between these diffs, and the ones you listed? It's not about how much damage an edit does, or whether it makes any sense - it's whether you are able to determine the editor's intentions, and are certain that they are trying to be disruptive. Please have another go at identifying three edits that are definitely vandalism.GirthSummit _(blether) 14:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

[1] - It is more like a comment than an edit. Bad faith.

I agree - I can't make out what the person is talking about, but it doesn't seem like it could be an improvement.

[2] - The editor was fully aware of what he was doing. He intended to vandalise the article.

Not sure about this one. You didn't post the diff, you posted a version of the article, but I assume you are referring to the edit prior to your revert. I'm not sure what the editor was doing, but looking at the user's pattern of contributions, and responses on their talk page, I don't see why you think this is vandalism. They seem to be quite prolific in this subject area, so if it is vandalism some investigation would be necessary - can you explain why you think this person is a vandal?

[3] - It is a promotional edit to promote his YouTube channel. So it is a bad faith.

Again, this isn't a diff, but assuming you mean the addition of 'Timmy Timmy Turner' then I agree, it could be treated as vandalism - it serves no purpose in the article.

[4] - Removed helpful informations. Also adding personal opinion as a joke (I guess)

This is borderline. Adding the personal opinion 'none are worthwhile' is definitely not helpful, but the removal itself would not be vandalism - note that the entire list of books is unreferenced, and the assertion at the start of the section is obviously wrong (it says he's written seven books, then lists nine) - someone could, in good faith, think that the section was unnecessary and boldly remove it. That is not vandalism, even if they don't explain their thinking.

[5] - I don't think this edit was made in good faith. The editor removed maps.

I'm not seeing this as vandalism. Yes, they've removed maps, but this edit was the last in a series of apparently constructive edits. It's not like it completely messed up the page, it just removed some collapsed maps half-way down the page - what if they thought that the maps were unnecessary? Or if they thought they were out of date or inaccurate? It's likely that, even if they were wrong about the removal, this was done in good faith. This is definitely a situation you should not treat as vandalism - it would be a good faith revert, and a discussion on the talk page about whether the maps were helpful in the article or not.

@Girth Summit: Sorry for being late to reply. I had an appointment with my opthalmologist tonight. I have posted the diffs. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 15:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Just posted extra diffs in case previous ones are wrong. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 01:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, Masumrezarock100, I've put some comments above. I'm not sure you're quite getting the distinction between edits that need to be reverted, but might be good faith, and stuff that is obviously vandalism. It's important to make this distinction for a couple of reasons: first, we handle to cases differently. It's OK to revert obvious vandalism without an edit summary, and to revert repeat offenders to AIV for their accounts to be blocked quite quickly; also, there's no limit to the amount of times you can revert vandalism to a page. However, if it's really a disagreement about content rather than obvious vandalism, you could find yourself getting blocked for 'edit warring' by performing multiple reverts. So, I really want us to get this right before we proceed.

I'd advise you again to do this on a PC rather than on mobile - personally, I've never found a way to do counter vandalism work on mobile. Really really obvious vandalism (e.g. replacing the content of an article with 'F*ck all you @ssholes') can be picked up on mobile, but with edits like the ones listed above, I'd be opening tabs to compare the different versions of the pages to see what's changed, looking at the editors' contribution histories, and trying to work out the editors' intentions. Remember - if you are in any doubt, assume that it is a good faith edit. Still revert, but leave an edit summary, and perhaps suggest the editor discuss it on the talk page.

So, one more time - please find three more examples of definite, 'no doubt about it' vandalism, and post below. There is no rush to do this - if it takes a few days to find the diffs, that's no problem at all. I do recommend using the link above to review recent, 'likely bad faith' edits, but only select ones that you have no doubts about at all. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks I will post diffs from computer now on.

[6] - I don't know if the editor has personal grudge against the company. But it could be a joke. Bad faith.

Yes, this is vandalism. A couple of factors convince me - what they added was silly nonsense, and looking at their contributions they are a new account, adding similarly silly stuff to multiple pages. They seem to have stopped now, but if they carry on I would report to AIV as a vandalism only account (more on this later).

[7] - Changed some phrases to shit even the references which may return in 404 not found. They went too far just to vandalize the article.

Yes, plain vandalism. Another IP reverted but introduced a typo into a ref - I've fixed it and warned the initial IP.

[8] - I think it is bad faith. I mean seriously New Valentin York history! Kinda like they were joking around.

Clearly unhelpful and meaningless. I would probably give the benefit of the doubt here and classify this as a test edit, since it's the first ever contribution from the IP, but you could argue this is vandalism.

[9] Good thing that the article is pending changes protected. Replaced the contents with totally nonsense. This could be a joke too but they went too far.

Absolutely, yes - plain vandalism, no doubt about it.

I have finished my task. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 10:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Since you haven't replied yet, I am assuming that the mention by edit summary didn't work(I did it because the previous ping here didn't work.) @Girth Summit: Therefore another ping.Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 11:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Masumrezarock100 - I did get the first ping, I was just busy! Please don't read anything into whether I reply quickly or not - I try to be responsive when I can, but I may not always be able to reply to updates quickly, so don't assume that anything has gone wrong if I haven't replied to you. If I go a few days without responding, you can give me a reminder, but all your pings have been working so far. :)

The diffs you posted above are much better. Three of them are definitely unambiguous vandalism; one is a bit more borderline, and I would probably treat it as a test edit in the first instance, but may switch to vandalism if they keep doing the same thing. Anyway, I think you've shown that you've developed a better understanding for what we mean by vandalism here. The rule to remember is that if you are in any doubt, then assume good faith - you may certainly revert, but you need to explain briefly what's wrong with the edit, and when you give a warning, select an appropriate one for what they have done. Only use vandalism reverts and warnings for cases where there is no doubt in your mind that this person is intentionally harming Wikipedia.

Right, on to the next section...GirthSummit _(blether) 12:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

A note about Twinkle[edit]

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[edit]

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

Please answer the following questions

Why do we warn users?

We warn users in case their edits or actions violated our policies. Or they intend to hurt a project. Warnings are like teacher's lectures that guides new users to the right path of editing.

This is correct, but there is a bit more to it. Warnings do indeed communicate to the user that there is something wrong with what they are doing - whether that's test editing, removal of content, adding unsourced material, plain vandalism, or anything else. Importantly, they also create a record of us having warned them - so, if you ask an admin to intervene to block the account, they can see that they have been repeatedly warned. It also helps other counter-vandalism volunteers to recognise when they are dealing with a repeat offender. Admins will often decline to block an account that has not been warned sufficiently, so make sure that you warn each time someone vandalises, and that you increase the warning levels appropriately.
When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

I think a 4im warning would be appropriate if the user or IP has been warned multiple times(using the final warning template) and has no intention to stop.

Actually, that's what a regular Level 4 warning is for. 4im is for when someone has vandalised multiple times, or in a particularly egregious way (e.g. putting unsourced accusations of criminality onto a BLP), but nobody has warned them before. It's a way of saying 'Stop immediately or you will be blocked' to someone who hasn't been warned before - so only use it in the most serious circumstances.
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!)

We should substitute a template in case changes are made to the template. The substituted template in a page won't change while a transcluded template may change. For example if a unsubstituted warning template gets vandalized, all talk pages containing the template will reflect the changes. It can mislead new users. I would add subst: between a template's first curly bracket and the template name. For example {{subst:unsigned}} is the substitute of {{unsigned}} template.

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

I would report about him on administrators' notice board using Twinkle.

Yes - the correct notice board is AIV.

@Girth Summit: I have finished answering the questions. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 13:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Good answers - some comments/expansion above, next task is below. Don't rush to complete this - take your time, ensure you take the appropriate action in each case; feel free to ask a question if you're not sure what to do about something.

Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Also try to include at least two good faith test edits, and at least two appropriate reports to AIV. For each revert and 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	[10]	A good faith edit but unsourced. Violation of WP:Verifiability	Y Definitely good faith, but unsourced (and somewhat ungrammatical, and breaking MOS guidelines (MOS:SCAREQUOTES)) so a fair revert.
2	[11]	More like a joke(could be a personal grudge).	Y Yes, definitely vandalism - it was the second time they'd added it, so your level 2 warning was totally appropriate.
3	[12]	They just randomly pressed buttons on a keyboard. Bad faith edit (could be a test but highly unlikely)	Y OK, so obviously it needed to be reverted, but for this one you ideally do a Good Faith revert and issue a level 1 'test edit' warning. It was the first contribution from that IP, and while it could have been vandalism, it could have been a genuine test edit. Since we have no other context to help us judge, we assume good faith. (It's worth remembering that not everyone who might come onto Wikipedia is really computer literate, and sometimes they just want to check to see whether they really can edit a page. There is a section at WP:NOTVANDALISM about this (Editing tests by experimenting users).
4	[13]	Totally bad faith edit on a featured article. I know I am not supposed to comment on editors but it seems like he frequently uses profanities.	Y Agreed, clear vandalism. I note that they continued doing it, and were reverted again - if this user continues in this vein feel free to report to AIV.
5	[14]	A test edit.	Y Actually, I disagree with you on this one - I'm inclined to think that this is vandalism because of the edit summary - they claim to have made it better, but they clearly didn't. Nevertheless, you did the right thing - if in doubt, AGF and give a test edit warning.
6	[15]	"Some form of no sound but some talking"! The editor also added multiple lines. I think it is between a test or bad faith. The editor seems to have less knowledge about Silence. Or could be a joke.	Y I agree - this is someone being silly and goofing about. It's not offensive, but it's still vandalism. The escalation to a level 2 warning is borderline - their last warning was in March, so quite a while ago, and it's a school IP so quite likely to be a different user. Just as a rule of thumb, I probably wouldn't escalate the warning unless their last one was within the last month or so.
7	[16]	If I am not mistaking, Gorilla Zoe is not their "daddy". Bad faith.	Y So this is a tricky one. 'Daddy' might be a nickname that his fans actually use for him - I don't know enough about rap music to say whether that's true or not. It's the IP's first edit since 2006, so we don't have much to go on in terms of context - I'd probably have done a Good Faith revert, with an edit summary along the lines of 'Unsourced nickname', and left a level 1 'adding unsourced material' warning.
8	[17]	Please see their summary and then the edit. Definitely not in good faith.	Y Absolutely - classic vandalism, with deceptive edit summary. In my experience, edit summaries like 'Fixed grammar' or 'Fixed typos' are very commonly used to disguise vandalism. If you see an edit with a change in the size of the page of more than one or two bytes, and an edit summary like that, it's always worth investigating.
9	[18]	No doubt about it.The editor was fully aware of what he was doing. It could be for promotional purposes.	Y Agreed - changing the name of the person the article is about is quite a common form of vandalism. Probably a joke, but vandalism nonetheless.
10	[19]	I don't know if the editor and the person have met each other. Seriously "smelly"! Bad faith. Also see their contributions.	Y Yes - sheer vandalism, and a BLP violation as well.
11	[20]	Almost same as 3rd example.	Y So in this case, it's not random characters - the text they inserted was Portugese for 'It was Lula'. Although it's the IP's first contribution, this makes me lean more towards vandalism than just a test edit, so I think your warning was appropriate.
12	[21]	The editor is attacking people. He could also be a ~~pervert~~. Also adding personal opinions in previous edits.	Y So I had a look at this IP's other contributions. This edit definitely violates WP:NOTGUIDE, although on it own I don't know if there's enough to say it's vandalism (it's not clear what private services they're talking about). Their other edits are obviously WP:NPOV violations, and needed to be reverted. It seems clear that these edits aren't about improving the articles, so I agree with you that this is vandalism. However - we are on a training page here, and nobody else is likely to read it; nevertheless, we are still talking about an individual, and all the rules about civility apply even to vandals, so you need to be careful not to cast aspersions as you did in your comment - I'd suggest you strike that. We'll discuss later in the course how we deal with communicating to and about vandals, but you could take a look at WP:DENY now if you like, to see why comments like that aren't helpful.
13	[22]	They may look like innocent.But totally a ~~pervert~~. Adding personal opinion in good faith (more likely).	Y Hard to know what to make of this one - I think it's probably vandalism, hard to imagine they meant that in good faith. I note again that you shouldn't be using that word to describe another editor however - if they are a vandal, call them a vandal, but 'pervert' is a personal attack that we should not be using.
14	[23]	Second time they did it. They were not joking around.	Y Very odd - I can't understand what they were trying to do there. If it was a one-off I might have put that down to a test edit, but repeating it after reversion/warning is vandalism - I also note the inclusion of an inappropriate external link in their contribution history, which indicates that they know how to edit, making a 'test' less likely. The IP address is now globally blocked for cross-wiki abuse, so they were obviously messing about on other Wiki sites too.
15	[24]	Unhelpful good faith edits. Not cited.	Y This is potentially good faith, with a certain element on promo. The whole section isn't very well sourced (only ref is a video of the program itself, which is primary so not great) - however, the assertion about it being the program that launched this person to stardom would definitely need to be reworded and sourced, so your revert was good and the warning template was appropriate.

I have finished my tasks. Sorry I haven't been able to report anyone to AIV. Guess I have to stalk them and report them when they vandalises Wikipedia again and get 4im warning. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 08:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice work on these - I agree with most of your decisions, and in the few where I feel differently you have erred on the side of caution, which is exactly the right thing to do. Thanks for striking above - I know it seems like a small thing, but it's good for us to be models of appropriate behaivour. You don't want to give a vandal any ammunition if they come back with a new account and want to start harassing you!

It's not a problem that you haven't yet made a report to AIV - that will come in time, just let me know when you've done one. Also, note that looking into a vandals contribution history is definitely not stalking (or HOUNDING, as we're encouraged to call it). The first thing I do after reverting vandalism is to look at the editor's contribs in a new tab - very commonly, they will have made other vandalistic edits that need to be reverted, and that might influence the level of warning I give them. If it is someone who has rapidly been vandalising lots of different pages (or they have been repeatedly targeting the same page, and I just caught their last attempt), I will leave their contributions tab open for a while and update it from time to time to see if they are still doing it - if so, rollback and increase warning level. If they vandalise after a level 4 warning, it's straight to AIV. Doing something like that to a good faith editor you just disagree with would be considered hounding, but if you have determined that they are a vandal who is trying to harm the project, then it's an important part of patrolling.

Anyway, thanks for the good work in this section - I'll upload the next task shortly. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

OK - next section is below. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I just wanted to let you know that I did report an IP today. But I've forgotten about it. Looking back to my contributions I found it. [25] This is the diff of when the IP was blocked. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 15:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, perfect - so you know how to go through that process. I'll check your next answers shortly... GirthSummit _(blether) 17:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion[edit]

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

Protection[edit]

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

A page should be semi-protected when multiple unauto-confirmed or unregistered users vandalize a page simultaneously or repeatedly especially on biographies of living persons.

Yes - semi-protection is to prevent new and unregistered users from vandalising a page. The majority of vandalism comes from new accounts or IPs, and they often target a page when the subject is in the news for a few days. Temporary semi-protection is far and away the most common type of protection I request - it's for short periods of intense, anonymous vandalism.

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

A page should be protected by pending changes when there is
- Persistent vandalism
- Violations of the BLP policy
- Copyright violations

Also this protection makes things easier. Only editors with pending changes reviewer right gets to accept submissions which is given to experienced editors. So there is no chance that a vandalism would occur. Even from a extended confirmed users.

So this is partially correct. If you read the policy carefully, you'll see that pending changes protection is typically for pages that attract lower volumes of traffic. The advantage is that anyone can still edit the page, so it's less restrictive; the problem is that it creates more work for pending change reviewers, who have to check all the edits. In short - if a page is getting lots of vandalism for a short period of time, semi is correct; if it's getting low levels of vandalism over a longer period, pending changes is the better option.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

A page shouldn't be fully protected unless there are edit warring or vandalism from extended confirmed accounts which even an 30-500 protection and blocks can't stop. Or the page contains critical templates & modules. As fully protected pages can only be edited by the administrators, it is generally indefinitely avoided in main namespace (or for a short time period).

Yes - pages are only fully protected when there is serious disruption from extended confirmed editors - who really ought to know better! It's only ever applied temporarily to main space articles, although some crucial templates are protected in this way.

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

A page should be creation protected when it was deleted according to WP:Deletion policy but then later created repeatedly. From what I've experienced, I've only seen two page as creation protected. First one is Oshwah as it was an attack page and the second one is Amit Bhadana which was deleted via CSD nomination and then later via AfD nomination.

Yes - if a page has been deleted several times, it will usually be salted to prevent the disruption of having it created again. Attack pages are one possibility; also, some people repeatedly try to create promotional pages about companies that simply aren't notable - they tend to get salted too.

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

We shouldn't semi-protect a talk page unless there is significant amount of IP and nonauto-confirmed vandalism on a talk page. But we should avoid it as possible as it directly affects the other good IP and nonauto-confirmed users.

Yes - this would only happen in very unusual circumstances - perhaps if the article had been protected, and people moved to start disrupting the talk page instead. I've never come across this situation myself, but it's useful to know that it can be done if necessary.

Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

[26] Should this work? I requested the protection earlier today. But I forgot to add "Previously vandalised by user. "in the request. Although I requested semi-protected they added pending changes protection instead.

@Girth Summit: I have answered all of my questions. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 16:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Good - I see you applied for it for 'Green Park' as well - just a note, I would have selected 'temporary' rather than indefinite, the article history shows a lot of disruption from today, but not too much going back in time - semi protection for a few days would probably solve the problem.

Good work User:Masumrezarock100 - feedback above. I'm going out now, but I'll upload the next section tomorrow. Cheers! GirthSummit _(blether) 17:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Hello I just wanted to let you know that I made another AIV report about an IP who has been blocked for 31 hours.[27] Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 02:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Also I made another AIV report [28]. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 03:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Great - see next section below. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?: If a page contains patent nonsense or it is a test page or it is created for vandalism or a page that was deleted per afd nomination, I would choose the criteria G1, G2, G3, and G4 respectively. Or it is the author's request, I would choose G7 then. Also for user page deletion, I would use speedy deletion, instead of a afd.
Please explain how you would request that a page be speedily deleted.: I would open the Twinkle menu, click CSD and choose the criteria for speedy deletion and then submit the query. This would automatically tag the page with speedy deletion tag.

@Girth Summit: A question. Do I need to mention all of the criterias? Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 09:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Masumrezarock100 - if you confirm that you've read and understood each of the criteria, then I don't need you to list them all here. Just make sure you only use CSD where the case is really obvious - if an article is about something that might be significant, but not notable, use AfD rather than CSD. I'll upload the next section shortly.

By the way, you might note a comment I made at UAA about a nomination you made there - I wrote that before I'd seen that this user had e-mailed you, so perhaps there was something in the e-mail that made you suspect shared use? On the face of it, it didn't look like shared use to me - rather, it was a possible attempt at WP:IMPERSONATE, but we can't tell - accounts like that are usually blocked until they can demonstrate that they are who they say they are, usually by e-mailing someone at a specific team set up to deal with cases like this. We'll do more on usernames shortly... Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Hello this person created an account just to email me. I don't know what to do on this circumstances. I just warned him after the email using Twinkle. And then he sent two more. Here's what the first one has

Hi,
I'm trying to figure out if you are one of the people that keeps vandalising the Wikipedia page about me. This happens every few years whenever I get a new TV show sold or of the ground. It's usually an angry person. Seeing how you are in India, I don't think it's you that if doing it. I'm not tech savvy enough to stop this process from happening. This has happened before, people then do research and see that I am a real person with over 300 hours of national TV produced as a show runner with credits to prove it. Why do people keep trying to go after me? 
I know that when people audition and they her rejected, they get angry and sometimes attack me on Twitter, email, Instagram, etc. Now were back to them attaching me on Wikipedia. Not sure why you are doing it to but it makes no sense to me.
Thanks for your time, I hope you see fit to correct the issue and prevent the page from being deleted.

Best, TJ Actually an IP removed afd template from the page and cleared the afd discussion page too. So reverted their edits and warned them using appropriate template. Then I got this email. Another thing I didn't see any Impersonating checkbox in Twinkle so I went with shared use. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 10:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Masumrezarock100 - first, I'd advise you not to reply to the e-mails - just ignore them. The user doesn't have your e-mail address, and you probably want to keep it that way.

Don't worry about the impersonation versus shared use thing just now - we'll cover that soon.

Now, if I were you I'd put a personal message (not a Twinkle warning) on their user talk page, saying that you've received their mail but that you would prefer any discussion to take place publicly on talk pages. Explain briefly that the proper place to discuss the deletion nomination is at the AfD discussion, that it is not vandalism to nominate an article for deletion, and that if the subject is notable, and sources can be found to demonstrate that, then the article will not be deleted. Also tell him that your only involvement was because an IP user improperly removed the link to the AfD discussion (it was probably him, but you don't know that so don't suggest it at this point). Then you should be able to walk away from it (unless you want to look for sources and get involved in the AfD yourself). If he persists, and you think it's reached the level of harassment, you should take it to ANI - I'm happy to look at any correspondence and give you my view if you're not sure whether it's reached that point yet. CheersGirthSummit _(blether) 10:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I thought that he is the one behind that IP so I issued the Twinkle warning. Anyway I didn't reply to his email directly for privacy related concerns. He would get my email if did that. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 10:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

OK - I expanded on the comments you made at his talk page, and gave guidance about WP:IMPERSONATION - I see that their account has now been blocked, so you should be receiving no more e-mails from them. Hopefully that will be an end of it, but do let me know if this persists. On with the next section...GirthSummit _(blether) 11:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion examples[edit]

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

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.

Violation of WP:NPOV. It is also an attack page. I would list it under speedy deletion under our deletion policy. Also I would nominate it for deletion as per WP:NOTABILITY policy if it wasn't an attack page.

Which speedy deletion criterion would you select?

G10

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.

I would tag it for speedy deletion as per G11 criteria as it is a promotional and spam page. Also it is like an article about yourself.

G11 is correct.

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 500 subscribers on YouTube.

I would nominate for AfD for it's notability issues. Just 500 subscribers in YouTube and 2 album in SoundCloud doesn't make him a notable person.

You could go down the AfD road with this - to be honest though, I'd probably use an A7 speedy delete for this - a couple of self-published albums and a few hundred YouTube followers don't amount to WP:SIGNIF. AfD would not be wrong however.

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.)

It is WP:A1. I would list it for speedy deletion.

OK, so A1 almost applies, as there isn't much context there; however, if you'd done a bit of looking with Google, you would discover that he was indeed involved in the music industry, and did work with Lemmie (who went on to be much more famous!). He's also mentioned in our article The Nice. There isn't enough to warrant an article, but it is a plausible search term, so setting up a REDIRECT is the preferred option to deleting the page.

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?

I would list it for speedy deletion as per our deletion policy for copyright infringements.(G12)

Yes I would do the same. Even If All rights weren't reserved, copying and pasting violates our policy without a proper license (Creative Commons license).

Perfect - we assume all material is copyright, unless it explicitly states that it is not. The only slight exception here is Wikipedia mirror sites - pages which copy our content. If you suspect COPYVIO, always CSD and let an admin decide.

Scenario 6

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

I would list it for speedy deletion as per WP:A2. If the article is not the same as an article on another language wiki, I would use the template {{Not English}} instead.

This is correct, but there are a couple of other checks you could do in addition to these. Start by grabbing a chunk of the text and put it into Google translate - what does it look like then? Also check for copyrighting by putting text into Google search (inside quote marks) to see if you can find identical text anywhere. If you think it's advertising, copyright infringement, or vandalism/an attack page, CSD as appropriate.

Scenario 7

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

It is WP:A3. I would list it for speedy deletion.

Actually, G7 is the correct tag for this situation - blanking a page you've created yourself counts as a request for speedy deletion. If they did it very recently I might wait to see if they were adding something different, but if it's more than 20 minutes old I'd tag it.

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 article space?

If the users creates an user page with this content I wouldn't do anything about it as it is in their userspace (except for copyright issues and promotion or advertising). But if they transfer it to article space, I would list it for speedy deletion (G1).

Yes, if a user wants to have random gibberish on their talk page, that's up to them. But in article space, CSD G1 is the way to go.

@Girth Summit: I have finished answering all of the questions. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 11:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

See my comments above - there are a few questions that you haven't fully addressed, please could you expand on them? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Sorry for not reading the question properly. Sometimes my math tutor says the same thing. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 12:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Ha! Yep, I say the same thing to plenty of my student! OK, I'll upload the next section later. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, we encountered the issue with the UAA report earlier today, so it's time to look at...

Usernames[edit]

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. This is also a good way to pick up promotional user pages - if the name looks suspicious, and the link to their userpage is blue, it's often the case that the user will have created a promotional userpage that should be CSDed.)

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, usernames that impersonate other people, or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps. (Note - this is the report you should probably have chosen for UAA earlier on - we must assume impersonation until the user has demonstrated that it is not. You can make a 'mistleading' report, and note in your comments that it may actually be the person, but you are reporting so that the admin can do a WP:REALNAME block until they've verified their identity.)
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 particluar attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.

Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users - note that not all of them are breaches. Say which ones you think are breaches, and why, and describe what action you would take for each of them. If you think there are additional checks you would carry out before taking action, say what they are.

BGates

Seems like this account is created by an app developer company. I would report it as usernames implying shared use or promotional username.

Hmm - I didn't know that company existed! I put this one in because it might represent 'Bill Gates', the founder of Microsoft. The same principal applies though, so we can discuss either the company or the person. Basically, this could be a real person's name, who just happens to have a name similar to Bill Gates or that company - it could be Barry Gates, or Brenda Gates, or whatever. This is allowed, and there is no problem with the username, unless they are editing in areas where the name might be seen as misleading. So, if BGates was editing at Microsoft or a similar article, or if they were editing an article about the company BGates, then it would be sensible to report - either as misleading, or as promotional/shared use. If they were just editing random articles with no obvious connection, then there isn't a problem - leave them alone.

LMedicalCentre

Represents a group or organization. I would warn them. And later report them if they don't request a change.(as above)

This is correct. Don't report unless they start editing promotionally - but as soon as they create a promotional userpage, or start a draft about their medical centre, report.

G1rth Summ1t

Seems like impersonating you. I would report about him at WP:UAA as misleading username. Also it is like BLP violation.

Misleading username is correct. It's not really a BLP violation, since I'm anonymous at Wikipedia, but it's certainly a violation, and they'd be quickly blocked. (This has actually happened to me a couple of times - if you do a lot of counter vandalism work, you become a target for this sort of thing. Admins tend to deal with it quickly.)

Poopbubbles

"Poop" Clearly intentional. I would report them as disruptive username.

This is a bit rude and childish, but it's not highly offensive. You could report, and an admin might block, but they'd probably look at the contributions first. If they were editing constructively, I'd leave them along; if they were vandalising, however, I'd report as a vandalism-only account, and point out that the username suggests they're not here to do anything useful.

JoeAtBurgerKing

This type of username represents an individual. If their edits appear to be promotional, I would assume that this is a promotional username and warn them using Twinkle. If they still don't appear to request a change of their username, I would report them.

Well done, correct - there's nothing wrong with this username, since it identifies an individual; however, if they were editing about Burger King (or McDonalds, or whatever), they have a clear COI and you should report them for that (WP:COIN)

JoeTheSysop

If the user is a sysop, I would leave things as it is. But if the user doesn't have admin permission, I would warn them. If they don't listen I would report it to WP:UAA as misleading username.

It's highly unlikely that you'd find a sysop with a username like this - I've certainly never met any! It's always worth checking though... You could give them a warning, but to be honest I'd go straight for report for this one.

ih8g@ys

I didn't find anything specific about it on Google. However seeing the username, I would say it is a brand or product name rather than a human's. Report it as an promotional username.

Not your fault - this was a tricky one - but it helps to become familiar with some of the ways that people replace characters with others to get past edit filters. If you replace the 8 with 'ate', and the @ with 'a', this says 'I hate gays' - it's hate speech. Report immediately as offensive.

M@sumrezarock1000

Same as the third one.

Yep.

Drmiesisaloser

I remember that there is an admin called Drmies. Totally a personal attack. I would report it immediately as a disruptive username.

Absolutely - Drmies is a prolific admin, folk like him and Oshwah get a lot of abuse, poor chaps.

😜

We can't use emojis as an username as it is prohibited. Also this user name is offensive(could be treated as joke if we assume good faith). I would report it to WP:UAA as disruptive username if they don't appear to request a change of their username even after warning.

OK, so you're right - emojis aren't technically allowed - however, if you check WP:NOEMOJI (part of WP:UPOL), you'll see that users with emojis and similar characters in their usernames are to be advised to change it first, and a discussion is then to take place at WP:RFCN - that's where you have to go if you have a problem with an emoji, rather than UAA. To be honest, I don't bother with that - if they are editing constructively I leave them alone, if they're vandalising then I report them for that.

AdOrientum

Same as the seventh one.

Well spotted. This is an actual username I came across once - it was blocked in minutes.

@Girth Summit: I have finished answering all of my questions. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 17:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Good job on these Masumrezarock100 - see my comments above, mostly correct just a few things to be aware of.

The most important thing to remember when considering a report to UAA is the potential for disruption. There are very few names I would report before they had edited - basically, obvious impersonation of another editor, or names containing hate speech. Anything else, wait for them to edit, and look at the edits - if a promo name is making promo edits, report it.

OK, I've got stuff to do now, but I'll go through my notes and move onto the next section soon. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Just wanted to let you know that I requested temporary semi page protection (IP edit war) for M. K. Stalin which is semiprotected until August 3rd. [29] Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 03:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, on with the next section. The following text/questions are part of the standard training course - once you've done the reading and answered the questions, I'll give you some of my own informal thoughts based on experience - judging what needs revdel can be tricky... GirthSummit _(blether) 06:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Revision Deletion and Oversight[edit]

Please read WP:Revdel and WP:Oversight carefully.

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 guidelines noted above. Revision deletion hides the edit from anyone except admins; oversight hides it even from most admins.

If you believe an edit needs to be revision deleted, how would you request that?

If it is a about copyright violations, I would use {{Copyvio-revdel}} to the article. If it's about personal attack or summary vandalism or privacy related issue, I would request to an admin who is listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests for revdel.

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

I would request an oversighter or email the oversight team from here.

@Girth Summit: I have finished answering all of my questions. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 06:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes Masumrezarock100, that's all correct. The only thing I'd add is that the best way to request revdel is to use the revdel IRC channel - here - that will get the fastest response, and it ensures the communication can only be seen by administrators. The alternative, if you can't get onto IRC, is to e-mail an admin - it's best not to leave it on their talk page, to avoid the Streisand Effect.

Now, I promised to give you my thoughts on what does and does not require revdel, in terms of offensive language and/or BLP violations. In my experience, the answer you get depends on the admin you speak to. I won't mention any names, but I know some admins who will revdel pretty much anything offensive added to a BLP; others will only do it for very serious allegations, such as accusations of child sex offences or murder. In terms of offensiveness - if you see obvious and seriously offensive racist, homophobic or sexist abuse, most admins will remove it; on the other hand, don't report stuff like 'X is gay' - it's so common, and not outrageously offensive.

I think the best advice on how to respond to stuff like this came from Oshwah. He told me that if you are absolutely certain, then go on IRC (or e-mail an admin) and say 'This needs revdel' (providing the URL to the diff). If you aren't certain, but are concerned, then go on IRC (or e-mail an admin) and say 'I found this - does it need revdel?'. Admins will be happy to either remove it, or give you some feedback about whether it's necessary, and over time you'll get a feeling for what does, and does not, require it. I hope that makes sense - feel free to ask any questions you want to about this, either here or on my talk page if you come across anything after graduating.

I'll upload the next section shortly...GirthSummit _(blether) 06:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I just want to know that if someone is not g*y, but still a offender harasses him by calling him this. Doesn't this make it a totally intentional personal attack. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 07:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes - it's obviously intended to be disruptive and disparaging. It would be reverted, naturally, and treated as vandalism - but I don't think any admins would say it required revdel. Revdel might be required if there was a tirade of expletives and use of more offensive terms, but just saying that someone is gay isn't itself offensive enough to warrant revdel.

By the way, I noticed your recent UAA reports - you'll see they were declined as the accounts hadn't edited yet. This is what I was talking about above - for PROMO-type names, wait until they edit. The only names you would report before any edits would be hate speech and obvious attempts at impersonating another Wikipedia editor. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 07:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

About finding and tagging page for speedy deletion. Can I use the page curation toolbar to find the pages (spam, vandalism, promotions etc.) and tag those for deletion? (I can't review the pages, as I am not a reviewer). But this way I can find pages for deletion. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 07:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Masumrezarock100 - the page curation toolbar would allow you to do that, but you can't access it without New Page Reviewer rights. (I wouldn't suggest applying for that yet - take your time and get some anti-vandalism experience under your belt.) What you can do is use the New User Log to look for dubious new usernames. If you look at the log, you'll see most of the links are red - they haven't edited yet. If you see a username that looks promotional however, and their contributions is a blue link, that means they've been editing. If their user name is a blue link, that means they've created a userpage. Take a look - nine times out of ten, a name that looks like a company will either have created a promotional userpage (CSD it), or they'll have been adding spam links to articles (revert and report to UAA). Does that make sense? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I know I can't review pages with out the new page reviewer right. But I installed a script to my common.js, and now I can access the list of new pages. I tagged a few unreviewed pages for speedy deletion for copyright issues (which was caught up by copyvio detector). I want to know that Is it okay for me to do that? About the usernames, now it makes sense to me. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 09:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: By the way, when you will give me my next task or question? Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 11:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy at work today. I'll try to get onto it as soon as I can. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Ok. I have to go to my English tutor's place now. I will be back in two hours. Another thing it seems like ImTJAllard was the real one. He followed and contacted me on Twitter via his personal twitter account after he got blocked. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 12:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yikes - I just noticed that you had your Twitter account on your userpage. It's entirely up to you of course, but my advice to you would be to remove that - you don't want vandals to be able to troll you on Twitter. In this instance, I never really doubted that it was the real T. J. Allard, but it's not for you or I to determine that - he needs to e-mail the right team using the instructions he was given on his talk page. I hope he's not harassing you?

I'm going to be busy this afternoon and evening, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to log in again, so I've put the next two sections below to keep you busy. After you've completed them, we should talk about rollback - I think you last put in a request for that back in February? That was a while ago, and the work you've done here should stand you in good stead for a new application, but there is a section on the rights and responsibilities that we should go through first before making the application. Anyway, please look at these two sections first. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Nope. He isn't harassing me. He is is the real one as he has a verified account and has so many followers. Is it that necessary to remove my Twitter account? Actually I don't really do much activity on Twitter. I just follow and comment on Crunchyroll, Funimation and other anime related accounts. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 15:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad he's not bothering you. As for your Twitter account, it's really up to you. I don't use Twitter at all, so I'm not clear on how easily someone could use that to get at you; all I'm saying is that when doing counter-vandalism, you are likely to come across some unpleasant people - I've had my user page vandalised, my talk page vandalised, I've had accounts set up to impersonate me, and I've even had people vandalise articles with reference to my user name (see the user box on my page about Dante's Inferno!). If vandals know your Twitter account, it's another way for them to troll you - how much you worry about that is entirely up to you. Personally, I wouldn't risk it - but then, I don't know anything about Twitter, perhaps it's easy to block people from your feed (or whatever)? Totally your decision.

I'll reply to the sections below separately. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Emergencies[edit]

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

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

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

If I encounter a threat of harm, I would contact my local emergency services (police or cybersecurity department) if I am in immediate danger. I would also report about it with a diff to WikiMedia foundation using this email emergencywikimedia.org or using Special:EmailUser/Emergency on Wikipedia. Additionally I would inform Wikipedia administrators via email or using #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect. If it doesn't work, I would contact stewards using #wikimedia-stewards ^connect. I would also request for oversight if the threat contains personal information.

Yes - the main thing is to e-mail the Emergencies team, they are trained to deal with it.

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

If I am in doubt I would discuss about it on article's talk page or I would ask for help to admins(like Oshwah).

I'd advise a slightly different default position. If in doubt, report to Emergencies. We aren't trained to determine whether threats of harm are serious or not. Now, if someone is making entirely non-credible threats like 'If you revert me I'll fuck you up!', you are probably safe to just report to admins - but if you are unsure, err on the side of caution and e-mail emergencies - especially if it's a threat of self harm.GirthSummit _(blether) 20:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users[edit]

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

On the other hand - good faith users who disagree with your reverts may come to your talk page and ask you to explain why you reverted their edits. This is a collaborative project, and it is important for us to communicate with other editors who are here to improve the encyclopedia, even when they are misguided.

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

All they want is to be recognized as they usually suffer from chronic alienation. They want to be infamous by interrupting and frustrating the Wikipedia project and community. That's why we don't feed the trolls.

Exactly - they want someone to notice them. The more attention you give them, the more they will want to vandalise - so we just revert, give an obviously automated warning, and then move on. This is actually why I don't like terms like 'vandal fighter' - we're not fighting them, we're just cleaning up the mess they make. I don't want to give them the recognition of saying I'm in some kind of battle with them. (This is why they call admins 'mops' - the tools are there to help clean up).

How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?

A troll would always personally attack me no matter what the reason is. Sometimes it is best to ignore it. But a good faith editor would always ask me calmly avoiding personal attack. Sometimes they might loose their temper, some of them even don't know our policy about avoiding all personal attacks. I would just warn them with Twinkle or leave a polite personal message with our policy links. If they still don't get it, I would acknowledge them as trolls and ignore them completely. If the trolls still continues to attack me I would report them at Administrators' notice board.

Hmm. Politeness isn't as good a sign as you might expect - there are a lot of good faith editors out there who get very annoyed when they're reverted, and who can be very rude on other people's talk pages. You're absolutely right about staying calm though - you have to be the more mature person. Ignore the anger, and look to see whether there is any merit in what they are saying. Again, think about intent - are they making an actual point, or have they just come to troll you? If they are good faith, they will usually calm down once they've blown off some steam, and engage in a discussion.

What would you do if an IP editor came to your talk page and told you that your revert was the dumbest thing they'd ever seen?

I would respond calmly and politely and explain my revert and policies regarding it.

Perfect - we should treat IP editors like anyone else. If they question a revert, we have a duty to reply - unless you think they're trolling.

@Girth Summit: I have finished answering all of my questions. I don't know why but these days I don't angry so easily (or not at all). I think I has been like this since I read no personal attack policy. Maybe it is an positive Wikipedia effect? Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 16:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Good work. I'll upload the rollback stuff over the weekend. Cheers! GirthSummit _(blether) 20:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

OK Masumrezarock100 - rollback questions below. Once we've completed this discussion, I suggest that you put in a new application for the right at PERM, and I'll add my endorsement to it there. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced vandalism fighters 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 faster than the Twinkle rollback button, but more importantly, having rollback gives you access to downloadable counter-vandalism software like WP:Stiki and Huggle. (You can read more about these at their respective pages. Using them is completely optional and is not a formal part of this course, which is built around Twinkle, but I'd be happy to give you my take on their relative benefits if you are interested.)

Please read our rollback guideline at WP:Rollback very carefully, and then, bearing in mind the difference between outright vandalism and good faith (but problematic) edits, answer questions below.

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

Rollback may be used to revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear or to revert edits in my own userspace or to revert edits that I have made accidentally or to revert edits by blocked users (where the edits are vandalism). I can also use rollback to revert widespread edits (usually by a misguided editor or malfunctioning or vandal bot) which unhelpful to the encyclopedia. But I have to leave an explanation at the article's talk page. Rollback must not be used to revert good-faith edits.

Correct - never use it to revert good faith edits - only obvious vandalism that nobody could reasonably disagree with. If you look through the archives at ANI, you'll find lots of examples of people having the rollback right removed, or even being blocked, for inappropriate rollback use - this even happens to admins occasionally. Think of it like the Twinkle Red link - it's fast, but it's only for use when you have no doubts at all.

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

I would make a dummy edit with an appropriate edit summary after my revert.

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

Usually I can't leave an edit summary if I use rollback. But there are some scripts which I can use to leave a customized edit summary. If I leave an appropriate edit summary each time I use rollback, I can use rollback freely.

Correct - I don't use those scripts myself, if I want to leave an edit summary I use Twinkle Blue or Green Rollback.

@Girth Summit: I have answered all of the questions. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 10:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, good work - these answers look fine.

I just took a look through your contributions (because that's what an admin will do if you apply for rollback), and I noticed that, while you have been pretty active over the last few days, there isn't huge evidence for lots of active patrolling in the last few days. To give yourself the best change of being accepted this time, can I suggest that you spend a bit of time patrolling recent changes, using the 'likely bad faith' filter? If you spend an hour or two doing that, you'll probably be able to do many good faith and vandalism reverts, and to leave appropriate warnings on the users talk pages - that will demonstrate to an admin that you can be trusted with the right. Ping me when you've done that and I'll take a look. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Sorry about pinging before finishing my job. Actually I have bit of fever today.(There was a stormy night yesterday and I got wet because I forgot my umbrella while returning from my English tutor's place.) I don't think I can hold on for that long. I will finish it later. Another thing how about if I request one of the admins personally instead of requesting at PERM. There is a category for those admins. And when I will graduate? Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 10:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I was meaning to ask you about the storms - I was hearing about a cyclone heading towards Kolkata in the news here, I hope everything is OK where you are? Also hope you're feeling better tomorrow.

No problen for you to do the patrolling later - there's no rush. Once thing I would advise however - please be more formal and informative in your edit summaries - I just saw this, which isn't very helpful! I agree with the revert, but I would have written 'Revert unexplained removal of sourced content' as an edit summary there.

I guess you could request rollback from an individual admin by posting a request on their talkpage. However, if you can get a solid bit of recent changes patrolling in your recent contribution history, then combined with your performance on this training page I have no doubt that you would be granted the right at PERM - my advice would be to go down that route.

With regard to graduation, we've been through most of the course now. I need to check through to ensure there's nothing we've missed, but the main three things you need to do before you graduate will be (a) a bit more patrolling, as discussed above, (b) getting the rollback right and (c) the exam. Carry on with the patrolling, ensuring to leave helpful edit summaries, and let me know when you've done perhaps 20-30 reverts. CheersGirthSummit _(blether) 11:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Sorry for replying so late. All is fine here. Guess the cyclone didn't do much damage. I am feeling better right now. I have done some patrolling. Hey I have question. Why even the constructive edits by IPs trigger the bad faith filter? You see yesterday I reverted a good IP's constructive edit which showed up in recent changes with bad faith filter. I feel bad about it now. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 03:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100: Cool, I'll try to check your contribs later today. Regarding the filter, lots of things can trigger it, 'likely bad faith' is only about 50% accurate - if it was completely accurate we wouldn't need patrollers! If you accidentally revert a constructive edit, just self-revert and apologise on the IP's talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent Patrolling[edit]

@Masumrezarock100: - I've done a sport check of some of your recent reverts. They mostly looked pretty good, but I came across this one - you described it as test editing, I don't really see that however. I don't know anything about the subject, but it looked like an effort to add information to the page (with a source, although probably not a very reliable one). I'm not sure I'd have reverted that personally, but if I had done it wouldn't have been as a test edit - if the issue is sourcing, say that in the edit summary and select the 'improper sourcing' warning; or if you were concerned about COI/promotion, then use those warnings. Hope that makes sense?

Right, do you want to apply for rollback at this stage? I think that with the work you've done so far, you'd be a good candidate for the right, and there has been a suitable gap since your last application. If you make an application at PERM, let me know and I will leave a comment there. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Ok I will apply for rollback as I want to use WP:Igloo. About the edit I wasn't sure what to call it. It looks like a personal comment, bad referencing style(not vandalism though). So I reverted it and called it as a test. About that wikibreak, It was because of my exams. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 14:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Girth Summit: I have been given the rollback right. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 16:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Update: Igloo is worse than recent changes. I am using Recent changes. And when I will take the exam? Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 16:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a shame about Igloo. I've never tried it, so can't comment. I do 90% of my work with Twinkle, but I'd strongly recommend trying Stiki - it's really good for removing old vandalism that never got picked up when it was done. There's also Huggle, but I'd recommend using Stiki for a bit before you get into that. I'll give you more thoughts on this if you are interested. Congrats again on the rollback, exam will be uploaded tomorrow. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100: OK, as promised, the final exam is below. Please go through the following questions, and ping me when you're done. Good luck! GirthSummit _(blether) 09:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Final Exam[edit]

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

Part 1[edit]

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

A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article, having never edited before. Would you treat it differently if they had done the same thing once before?
I would treat as test edit if they have never edited before. But if they did this sort of thing to other articles previously, I would treat it as disruptive edit.
Y Yes - if they've only done it once or twice before you can give higher levels of test edit warnings, but if they are making a habit of it despite multiple warnings, treat as disruptive or vandalism.
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?
As it is a single issue warning, I can't increase it's level. However if they kept doing that I would probably give them a personal warning message. If they continue to do this, I would report them to ANI.
Y Yes - ANI is probably the right place, since it's not blatant vandalism.
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?
This is violation of WP:NPOV. I would revert it and give them a level 1 NPOV warning. If they keept doing that I would raise the warning level and when it reaches the final level l would report them to ANI.
Y If the article was about a John Smith, or there was enough context to say who John smith was (e.g. an article about a band or a football club or whatever, who had a John Smith playing for them), then yes, NPOV would probabl be appropriate. If it was just any other random article, test rising to vandalism after repeated attempts would be appropriate.
A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
This a test edit. I would give them test edit warning, but if they continue doing that I would raise the level and finally report them to ANI.
Y - the only thing I'd say is that, if someone repeatedly adds test edits after multiple warnings and just won't stop, you can go to AIV, which is quicker and easier than ANI. It's hard to believe that doing that five times in a row after warnings is still good faith.
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 think "This is wrong" summary is not enough to remove a sourced information to an article. I would revert it. I would issue a "delete1" warning. I would also include a personal message to tell him to add reliable sources to back his statements up. If they still keep doing that I would report them to ANI. If the user has a history of positive contributions, I would do the same thing.
Y Good answer - make sure you leave an edit summary along the lines of 'revert removal of sourced content'.

Part 2[edit]

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

A user blanks Cheesecake.
I would give them "delete1" warning if they blanked it with out giving a reason.
Y
A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
I would give them "defamatory1" warning.
Y
A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
I would use single-issue warning "efsummary" to warn him.
Y
A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
This is kinda like a joke. I would give them "joke1" warning.
N I guess it could be a joke, but it could also be a personal attack. I'd go with vandalism for this (but, as discussed before, I wouldn't be asking for revdel)
A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
Same as first one.
Y
A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
I would give them a "disruptive1" or "test1" warning. But if they mentioned something like "I fixed it", I would give them "vandalism1" warning.
Y
A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
They add personal opinion or comment to article. I would issue "npov1" but the article of Great Britain is not a place to add comments about Tim Henman. I would issue "disruptive1" warning.
Y As with 'John Smith is the best' - there's not really enough context here to identify Tim - I'd probably go with test, rising to vandalism if repeated.
A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
As these words are unsourced and irrelevant, I would give the "biog1" warning.
Y
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
I would give them a 4im warning.
Y
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
I would report them to 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).
This is very unlikely to happen as my userpage is under extended-confirmed protection. But If this happens, I would give them a personal message or "npa1" warning with an additional personal message (as he replaced the content with "I hate this user").
Y Good to know that it's unlikely. It would be your call how you deal with it, but know that in a situation like this, you could go straight to ANI - if you've had problems with them in the past, and they start vandalising your user page, I expect they'd be immediately blocked.
A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
I would give them an "image1" warning.

Note: I wrote the template names from Twinkle menu. Also warning level may change based on how many warnings they have recently given.

Part 3[edit]

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)!
G11 as promotional page.
Y
Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
No indication of importance. I would use A7.
Y
Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
A1. No context.
Y - unless the name of the article suggested that it was a film or a book where this could conceivable be a plot summary. (Sounds like a really boring story!)
A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
Hoax. G3
Y
Fuck Wiki!
Attack page. So I would use G7.
Y

Part 4[edit]

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

TheMainStreetBand
I would report them as promotional username if they started making promotional edits.
Y
Fartpants
Totally offensive. I would report it as disruptive username to UAA.
N Meh. It's childish and silly, but not grossly offensive. If I saw a username like that, I'd look at their edits first - they would most likely be a vandalism-only account, so if they were vandalising I'd report them for that. If they are editing constructively however, I'd leave them alone.
Brian's Bot
I would report them unless the account is included in bot usergroup.
Y
sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
I think the editor didn't create this account to edit Wikipedia. This is a confusing username, too long and inordinate to remember. I would prefer to talk to the user first. If they don't want to change it or talk to me about it, I would report it to UAA as confusing username.
Y Absolutely - this does not look like it has been created to be constructive, but I'm not sure it's a blatant violation. Discussing first, and only reporting if they refuse to engage, would be a good approach.
WikiAdmin
I would report them unless they have admin permission.
Y
12:12, 23 June 2012
It is a copy paste of a timestamp(I think). I would warn the user about their username and request them to change it as it violates our signature policy.
Y Yes - as above, request a change, and report as disruptive if they don't. It would be very confusing trying to follow a conversation this account was involved in.
PMiller
They are impersonating Master P. I would report them to UAA.
N I can't agree with you there - there's no reason to think this is impersonation - with just a first initial, it's probably just someone's real name. This would only be an issue if their editing implied they were impersonating - so, if they were editing at Master P, you might want to raise it with them, but otherwise I'd leave this account alone.
OfficialJustinBieber
They are impersonating Justin Bieber. I would report it as misleading username.
Y Yes - since they are using the full name, this is a clear attempt at impersonation (unless it really is him) - report as misleading, an admin will block until they can demonstrate that they are who they say they are - if they do that, they will be informed about COI editing etc.

Part 5[edit]

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

Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
There are chances that I may get into an edit war as there are some editors in Wikipedia with WP:OWN behaviour. I don't want to get involve in any kind of edit war because of WP:3R. But if a user restores their vandalism revision, I may get involved without even realizing it. I will try to stay out of this as much as possible.
Y OK, so it's good that you are aware of the risk of getting involved an an edit war, and that you will be cautious to avoid it. However, it's also important for you to be aware of WP:3RRNO. If you are reverting obvious vandalism, you are exempt from 3RR - sometimes AIV is backlogged and it can take a while for an account to be blocked. You can continue reverting as many times as necessary to combat obvious vandalism. BLP violations have the same exemption - if someone is putting unsourced controversial assertion into a BLP, you can revert them as often as you need to. When I do this, I usually start a thread on WP:BLPN indicating that I am doing this and why - just to make sure that everything is in the full view of the community. Whenever I've done that, I've always found that other users have supported what I'm doing.
Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
I would report vandalism-only accounts to AIV using Twinkle, if a final warning or 4im warning is given to them.
Y
Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
I think it's ANI. If it violates BLP policies then report it to WP:BLPN.
Y
Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
Blatant username violations should be reported to WP:UAA using Twinkle (that's the best option
Y
Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
Personal attacks against other editors should be reported to Administrators' notice board(ANI).
Y
Where and how should an edit war be reported?
An edit war and it's warriors should be reported at WP:AN3.
Y Ensure that you have issued edit warring warnings to users first, and started a discussion on the article's talk page.
Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
BLP violations should be reported at WP:BLPN. If it involves serious violations, report it at IRC wikipedia-revdel channel.
Y Perfect.

Hey @Girth Summit: I have answered all of the questions. Looking forward to the results. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 15:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Masumrezarock100 - we'll done, good answers. I'm on mobile so it's not easy for me to give you proper feedback on all the answers, but just to set your mind at ease I'll be more than happy to graduate you with these answers. There's are one or two that I don't quite agree with, and a couple I'd like to expand on, but nothing major. I'll get onto a computer tomorrow, and give you proper feedback and formally graduate you from the programme, but basically - well done, you've passed! GirthSummit _(blether) 18:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Completion[edit]

Congratulations from 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 88%. Well done!

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

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.

It's been a pleasure working with you. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Girth. This course was very useful for me. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 10:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)