User:Girth Summit/CVUA/James-the-Charizard

Hello James-the-Charizard, 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.

@Girth Summit: I have enabled it. James-the-Charizard (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for confirming. Just for future reference, pings don't work unless you add your signature in the same edit as adding the ping - I didn't get the ping this time. If you forget to add a ping in a message, the best approach is to delete your previous signature, add the ping, then resign with four tildes - it's the act of turning the tildes into a signature that tells the notification system to trigger any newly added pings. Hope that makes sense - the next section is below...GirthSummit _(blether) 09:48, 30 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: While vandalism usually appears as patent nonsense or defamatory BLP violations, good faith edits are usually simple and an attempt to add more information to an article, but it may be unsourced, misguided, or in the wrong area. Good faith edits can be recognized when they aren't unconstructive and at least make an attempt to help improve the encyclopedia. Vandalism on the other hand, tends to be patent nonsense, and usually the tags will tell that it's vandalism. (Unless subtle vandalism gets by.) James-the-Charizard (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Some of this is true, but it's missing the key element: intent. If an edit is only considered vandalism if it is made with the to intentionally harm the project. It's important to make this clear at the outset. We will revert other types of edit of course - just because it isn't vandalism doesn't mean we leave nonsense on the page - but we treat vandalism differently to other problematic editing, so you need to know how to spot it.

I wish it was easy to identify vandalism all of the time - unfortunately it's not, because you can't easily get at a user's intent. Someone inserting a load of random characters, or deleting a load of information from a page, could easily be a newbie just testing to see whether they can edit - that's not vandalism. Making subtle changes to articles that intentionally introduce errors, however, would be vandalism - and it can be hard to spot. So you sometimes need to review various factors before making a decision - is it the first time the user has done this? Might it have been an honest mistake? Look at the context, and use your best judgement - if you can put your hand on your heart and say 'there is no way that someone could have done this without intending to harm the project', then treat as vandalism. If in doubt, assume good faith.

Please do make sure you read WP:VANDALISM thoroughly before proceeding - on to the next task. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:49, 30 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. Place diffs below (the easiest way to do this is by looking at the diff, and copy/pasting the URL into a set of single set of square brackets - like this).: @Girth Summit: here are three examples of each.

Good Faith [1] (Simple misconception of sorting draft picks by numbers rather than round) [2] (Numbers weren't given yet, unsourced.) [3] (Unsourced content, it also has little bearing with the article.) Vandalism [4] (BLP violations by adding insulting content) [5] (Slightly defamatory) [6] (Blanking page content with no explanation) James-the-Charizard (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, so I agree with all your good faith edits, and the first two of your vandalism edits. The third one, the page blanking, is not necessarily vandalism. I would WP:AGF and assume that the user thought the section was unnecessary or in some way inappropriate - removing material is often justifiable, and edit summaries, while strongly recommended, are not obligatory. In that case, I would assume good faith, and revert with an edit summary along the lines of 'rv unexplained removal of content'.

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.)

By the way, I noticed that your diffs were all mobile diffs. I've never found an effective way of doing counter-vandalism work on a mobile device - I'd advise you to do it on a PC with a proper screen. Please could you provide regular diffs instead of mobile ones for future tasks - they're a bit of a pain to work with from within a normal browser. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I actually did most of these on a computer, i'm just using my phone to reply at the moment. James-the-Charizard (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

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?

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?

@Girth Summit:

1. To attempt to get them to stop their inappropriate/disruptive actions.

Yes, that's part of it. First, we need to let them know that what they are doing is against policy. It's helpful in other ways too. First, it lets other patrollers see easily that they have done this before - that helps them know the right level of warning to give them next time, or indeed whether it's time to report them to AIV. It also helps admins assess whether or not to block - if they've been given the right sequence of warnings and are persisting, they will block; if they are reported without the right warnings having been issued, they often won't.

2. For serious rule breaking, blatantly terrible copyright violations, or using racist or offensive language.

Certainly, racist or highly offensive language would warrant a 4im. You can also use it if someone has been doing a lot of vandalism, but nobody has warned them yet.

3. You should always substitute the template on a user talk page, you but subst: in the curly brackets before the words.

Correct. If you use Twinkle to place the warning, this is done automatically.

4. Report them at WP:AIV.

Correct - again, you can do this very easily using Twinkle.

James-the-Charizard (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well done on these - I'll post the next section shortly. 12:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

- OK - see below - time to find some vandalism, revert it, and issue appropriate warnings. Good luck! GirthSummit _(blether) 12:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff	Trainer's Comment
1	[7]	comment	Good - clear case of vandalism, appropriately warned.
2	[8]	comment	Again - vandalism, appropriate escalated warning.
3	[9]	comment	Yes, vandalism, appropriate level 1 warning.
4	[10]	comment	I agree with the revert, but it appears you didn't leave a warning on the user's talk page this time. I agree that this was vandalism. If they'd just inserted an unsourced nickname, I'd have taken this as good faith and done a green good faith revert, with an edit summary of 'Unsourced' - however, with the extra messing around, including stating a very unlikely height, it's hard to see how that could have been done in good faith. This should ideally have been accompanied by a level 1 vandalism warning.
5	[11]	comment	OK, so this is a more complicated one. I agree that this needed to be reverted, but it's not a clear-cut case of vandalism. The editor made two substantive changes: (1) They inserted a given name throughout the article. I haven't read through the talk page exhaustively, but from a glance this appears to have been done against the prevailing consensus on the page, so it could be seen as disruptive editing, but it's not necessarily vandalism. (2) They added what appears to be unsourced, POV political criticism - again, not acceptable, but not necessarily vandalism. I would have done a blue revert here, with an edit summary along the lines of 'Revert unsourced political criticism', and left an 'Adding unsourced, controversial information to a BLP' warning. Personally, I don't think this would have risen to the level of a 4im warning - they weren't accusing the individual of sex crimes, or filling the page with profanities - I'd probably have given a level 2 for this, and escalated if they'd continued.
6	[12]	comment	This looks like it's too complicated to have been added as a genuine test edit (some very unusual characters), so I agree with your revert and level 1 vandalism warning here.
7	[13]	comment	Yes, clear-cut vandalism.
8	[14]	comment	Yes, clear-cut vandalism.
9	[15]	comment	Yes, an incompetent attempt at silly vandalism.
10	[16]	comment	I don't know much about American football, but if I interpret those changes correctly, they were factually inaccurate and probably impossible, so agree that this was intentional vandalism.

@Girth Summit: Do you want me to copy/paste the comment from the talk page or link to the talk page for the warning comments? James-the-Charizard (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

No need for you to post the warning - if you just put the diff of the revert, I can easily check the user's talk page to find the warning message. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Would one report the IP/User if they received a level 4 or 4im warning more than a week prior and vandalized again over a week after the 4/4im warning? Example: [17] James-the-Charizard (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi - there aren't any hard rules about exactly how long it is before a warning becomes stale - in this case, I agree with your issuing another warning, rather than reporting to AIV. They've only edited four times this year, and only once in the last couple of weeks, so there's not much disruption - if they keep doing it though, a report to AIV would become necessary. I'll check through your diffs above later on today. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 06:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I've given some feedback on the diffs provided so far - I agree with all the reverts, although there are a couple I would have treated slightly differently. Good work so far, keep adding diffs when you have time. Cheers! GirthSummit _(blether) 09:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Just wondering, did I correctly revert these edits? [18] And if so, which warning do I use? James-the-Charizard (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The edits appear to be made by the subject of the article, which is clearly against the advice at WP:COI. Sometimes in a situation like that with a new account, the best thing to do is give the user a 'Welcome' template - there is one you can choose from the list for someone who has edited in an area they may have a conflict of interest with. However, in this case, the username itself is an issue - per WP:IMPERSONATE, you can't have a username that implies you are a notable person until you have verified your identity with Wikipedia (usually through e-mail). So, I've reported the account to WP:UAA, and requested that they take the necessary action. An admin will most likely block the account, give them instructions on how to verify their identity (or choose a different username), and also give them some advice about not editing their own page - so in this case, no further action is required from you. As an aside, you should probably have left an edit summary when you reverted them - something along the lines of 'Reverting apparent COI edits'. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I ran into another editor adding the same reverted content, I did use the COI Welcome and added an edit summary to the latest revision. James-the-Charizard (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I see that. I agree that the new account is likely COI - that was their only ever contribution, and they reference the subject in their edit summary. I'd advise you not to do any further reverts to the page for now - this is problematic editing, but it's not clearcut vandalism so the vandalism exemption from edit warring does not apply. I'm going to leave a personal note on the new account's talk page, with some further instructions on editing where they have a COI - if they reinstate the content again, ping me and I'll take a look. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was just re-reading this after the discussion on the new user's talk page, and it occurred to me that I may have given you the impression that I thought your second revert on the page wasn't appropriate - just to make sure you understand, I want to be clear that I don't think there was anything wrong with your reverting for a second time here - the content was clearly inappropriate and needed to be removed. My point about edit warring was just that you shouldn't continue to revert past 3RR except in cases of clear-cut vandalism - you did the right thing by getting another opinion. The only thing you could have done a bit differently would have been to add an edit summary - either 'revert apparent COI edits', or 'revert promotional edits' would have done the job. Hope that makes sense, cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 08:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Yeah I mistakenly clicked the red button on the first revert, that’s why the edit summary was blank. James-the-Charizard (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I have posted the last four here. James-the-Charizard (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi - just a courtesy note to say I've seen your update, and I'll take a look as soon as I can - pretty jammed today, but I should get chance at the weekend. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 07:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, good work on these - I agree with all of your latest reverts/warnings. I think we can move onto the next task, which I'll post shortly. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, so from the diffs you've posted above, and from a quick spot check through your recent contribs, it seems pretty clear that you have a good handle on reverting and warning. I'd like you to keep doing this, so we can build up a solid track record should you wish to apply for rollback rights (more on this soon), but for now I'd like to look at a couple of other actions we can take to protect pages from vandalism, or to remove pages that have been created in bad faith. Please review the following section. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:54, 10 June 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. 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?: When a page has seen persistent vandalism from new editors and IP addresses.

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?: To hide possible vandalism or content disputes, and still allow new or IP editors constructively contribute.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?: In the cases of particularly sensitive topics or well known figures (i.e. U.S. Presidents, Monarchs of England, etc.), or if a page has seen major disruption due to constant content disputes.

In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?: If editors continue to restore the page despite consensus to delete it, or if the page is silly or pure vandalism.

In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?: If the talk page is consistently vandalized for long periods of time, or if said page is used inappropriately.

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).: This diff is from a few days ago (during a nasty vandalism revert session on multiple pages from one user) after vandalism did not stop. [19]

@Girth Summit: Whoops I forgot to ping that this had been done. Whoops... James-the-Charizard (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries - I've seen it now.

Yes, good answers - by far the most common one that I request is temporary semi protection. Next section below... GirthSummit _(blether) 06:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

@Girth Summit:

The most common cases I see for a page being speedily deleted is when said page is downright vandalism or a hoax (G3), if it’s pure advertising or promotion (G11), or if the subject isn’t credibly important (A7), there is also when a page has writings that don’t conform to Wikipedia's goals. (U5)

Yes, those are fairly common CSD criteria. G12 is also a common one for copyright violations - if something looks like it's been copied from a website or similar, it needs to be deleted quickly per WP:COPYVIO. You can use Twinkle to nominate pages for CSD if you think they are problematic - if in doubt, you can drop me a note on my talk page (or ask any admin) and we'll guide you until you get your eye in for it. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:34, 17 June 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.

I would either tag it as G3 (Pure Vandalism) or G10 (Attack Page).

Yep - either of them would work, probably attack page would be better (it automatically blanks the page at the same time as marking for deletion).

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.

Easy G11 criteria, as advertising/spam.

Yep.

Scenario 3

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

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

This is tougher... Without reliable sources, I would tag it as A7 lack of notability.

Good call. Note however the difference between significance and notability. In this case, there is nothing that could credibly be called a claim to significance - it's a high-school kid who's performed in school plays, and self-published some work on the internet. If the article contains a credible claim of significance however, even if it's unsourced if should be BLPPRODed (or sent to WP:AfD if the article isn't about a WP:BLP) rather than CSDed.

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.)

I'm struggling with this one... I don't know how to approach this one, unfortunately. My best guess is maybe an A7?

Ah, no worries, it's a bit of a trick question. So, Bazz Ward is not really notable in his own right, but if you'd searched for the name (either with Google, or with the Wikipedia search function), you'd have come across our article on The Nice. Sometimes, a redirect is a better choice than speedy delete - someone might credibly search for Bazz Ward, and being taken to an article with some info about him is better than drawing a blank. A7 would not be outright wrong though, and would probably be accepted by most admins as valid.

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?

Correct both times - we assume copyright exists even if it's not asserted; we would need an explicit permission to use the material before we could accept it.

Scenario 6

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

It would get tagged for A2 speedy deletion, or perhaps it could be translated.

Well, this is more complicated. First, grab a chunk of the text and put it into Google translate - if it's promotional, or vandalism, use the appropriate CSD tag for that. If it looks like it might be useful, you can flag it for translation rather than CSD.

Scenario 7

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

A3 criteria for no content.

This isn't quite right - the article has no content now, but a previous version does have content so A3 doesn't apply. The one you want is G7 - Author requests deletion - we are allowed to interpret the removal of all material as a request for deletion, provided there has only been one major contributor.

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?

I can’t think of a Ux criteria to tag it for, but if it was in the article namespace, I would tag it as G1 for patent nonsense.

Yep - there's nothing wrong with this on a user page, if someone wants to have garbage on their page it's allowed (so long as it's not promotional or offensive garbage); if it was an article, G1 patent nonsense is correct.

@Girth Summit: Answers above.

Just noticed that you'd answered these - remember, pings don't work if you don't sign your posts! I'm pretty busy today, but will check through ASAP. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 08:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Crap I thought I did sign my post! Sorry! >~< James-the-Charizard (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Good work on the above - a couple of things to note, but nothing major. You're doing really well at this, I appreciate the time you're clearly taking to check with the relevant guidelines. I'll upload the next section when I can get round to it (I'm kind of up to the eyeballs with writing my reports for my class, so Wikipedia time is limited...). Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: take your time, I did manage to pass all my classes and I’m on summer break, and I wish you luck on your reports. James-the-Charizard (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations! Glad your exams went well. Summer break - looking forward to that myself, a few weeks for us to go yet... GirthSummit _(blether) 06:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the longer-than-expected hiatus - hope you're enjoying your break (I'm counting down the days until ours...). The next section is below. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Revision Deletion and Oversight[edit]

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 articles 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?

Revdel: Email or contact administrations on the talk page in the CAT:RFRD category.

Oversight: Email the oversight team.

@Girth Summit: Answers above. James-the-Charizard (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep, you read the documents alright. So, now for the unofficial stuff that isn't in there...

You correctly identified that the official guideline suggests leaving a note on an admin's talk page. The first time you do that, the admin you contact will almost certainly tell you never to do that again, because of the Streisand effect. This is one of those situations where the word of policy, and how things are actually done, differ quite markedly.

E-mail does work, but it's not ideal - the admin you choose might not be logged in, or they might not check their email for a while. When you want revdel, you normally want it fast, and e-mail generally doesn't achieve that in my experience.

The best bet is the IRC channel - here - there are usually a dozen or so admins logged in, who will handle the request in a few seconds. If you've never used IRC, don't worry, it's fairly self explanatory - basically, click on the link, log in, start your message with !admin, and give the diff and a brief summary of why it should be revdelled. If it's oversight you're looking for, just type !oversight and wait for someone to offer to open a private channel with you.

Another note about revdel - the threshold for what does and does not require revdel differs greatly depending on which admin you speak to. Don't be offended if your request is denied - you've done the right thing in reporting a concern, and you've put the decision about whether it is or is not required in the hands of someone with more experience. If you're not sure, then rather than directly requesting it, you can phrase it as a question - "I came across this diff, does that require revdel?" - once you've done it a few times, you'll start to get a feel for what crosses the line. As a general guideline, if I see an unsourced accusation of a criminal act, or seriously offensive racist/sexist etc. abuse inserted into an article, I request revdel. Quite a common one is unsourced accusations of paedophilia against named individuals inserted into articles about schools - always request revdel for them.

Next section will follow soon... GirthSummit _(blether) 18:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for your kind words on my talk page - always nice to be appreciated! Next section is below...

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 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 particluar 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

I would leave this name alone, some could see it as impersonation, but I think "BGates" has many meanings other than Bill Gates.

Y Very good answer. This could be an attempt to impersonate Bill Gates; on the other hand, it could someone called Brenda Gates or Barry Gates, and real names are explicitly permitted. The only caveat I'd add would be that I would have a look at their behaviour indicated that they were trying to imply they were Bill Gates - e.g. editing extensively in articles about Microsoft or something. If they were vandalising, I'd report to AIV with a note about the username being an aggravating factor; if they were making constructive edits, I'd probably start with a talk page discussion before reporting to UAA unless they were making explicit claims to be Bill Gates.
LMedicalCentre

This one I would report to WP:UAA per WP:PROMONAME.

Y Note however that you shouldn't report one like this until they've edited. Most account names in the New User feed have red 'contributions' links - don't report ones like this until they actually start editing. There are exceptions to this rule however - if you see a username that includes a threat to a user, or is obviously outrageously offensive, it will be blocked before it edits. Also obvious attempts to impersonate other Wikipedians will be blocked before they get the chance to disrupt.
G1rth Summ1t

Here I am split. This is a violation of WP:IU, but I don't know if acting to WP:UAA is the best option here... I would open ask the user to change the name, if they didn’t, then I’d report to WP:UAA.

Y Good on you for assuming good faith, but to be honest I'd report a username that similar to another editor's on sight without waiting for them to edit (I've had to do it quite a few times). It would be different if my username was Bob Jones, but it's a made-up pseudonym, and while I suppose it's possible that there is really someone out there with that as their name, given the nature of my CVU work, this is overwhelmingly likely to be an account set up to harass me or cause disruption. See, for example Girth Summits. It wouldn't be outright wrong to discuss it with them, but my advice would be to report and move on.
JoeAtBurgerKing

I would leave it alone, I don't see major problems here.

Y Well done! Most of my past students have fallen for that one. There's nothing wrong with it because, while it does include the name of a company, it also identifies the individual, so it's not a policy violation. However - personally I'd investigate a bit further. If they really are employed by Burger King, they have a WP:COI with regard to that company, and indeed they may have WP:PAID issues as well if editing is part of their job. I'd look at their userpage to see if they have made the necessary disclosures, and look at their editing to see if they are adding spam or promo, but you're right that their username is not, in itself, a violation.
JoeTheSysop

Another tougher one. Again I would ask the user to the change the name, if that fails, then I would likely open a discussion.

Y Well, you could discuss it with them and encourage them to change it, but I'd personally I'd just report it immediately. There is no good faith reason I can think of to claim to be a sysop when you're not, and it's a blatant policy violation.
James-the-Chorizard: As above - I'd advise you to report this and move on. This is an obvious attempt to impersonate you, and making an attempt to engage with someone who is doing that is likely to feed their apparent desire for your attention. If you do a lot of counter vandalism work here you will probably end up pissing some unpleasant people off, and this is the kind of thing they might do to get a rise out of you. The best advice in is to report and ignore.
D0naldTrump

Again, same as above.

YOK, so I don't agree with you on this one - I would report it immediately. Whereas 'BGates' is somewhat ambiguous, including the full first name of an exceedingly prominent figure is going too far. I'd report this one straight away.
FuckAllYouAssholes

I would report to WP:UAA. Flagrant violation of WP:DISRUPTNAME.

Y Yep
Oshwaah

Same as James-the-Chorizard and others.

As above - but good to see you recognising this prominent admin's name. He and others regularly for flak of this sort - just report and move on.
😜

Another one where I would ask the user to change their name (per [[WP:NOEMOJI, a user account made after November 2017 cannot have emojis in their name.), if they don’t, then I may open a community discussion.

Spot on - this is technically a violation, but not one that warrants an immediate response to UAA. You could start a discussion if you could be bothered - personally, I'd look at their work and, if they were doing good stuff, I'd just leave them to it.

@Girth Summit: James-the-Charizard (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Good work James-the-Charizard - you obviously found your way around the policies. None of the above answers are flat-out wrong, but as you'll have seen, I'd generally advise you to go straight to the report in possible cases of impersonation. Trolls are often looking for attention and enjoy wasting your time - if you suspect foul play, just report it and let an admin deal with it. I'll add the next section shortly. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

New section below. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:43, 1 July 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?

One should contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Include all the details of the threat in said email.

Yes, correct. The Emergencies e-mail address is the best way to do this. Note that they won't respond immediately, they take a bit of time, but it is all logged and they will respond.

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)?

Still contact the foundation. The threat COULD be empty, but one should not try to test fate. The foundation staff can determine it.

That is the correct answer. My own personal attitude is, I must confess, a bit more lax. Vandals have threatened me in the past, but in totally non-credible and childish ways, e.g. 'If you revert this I'll fuck you up' - to be honest, I just ignore that sort of thing since there is no indication whatsoever that they have any ability to follow up on the threats. However, the official advice is to report any kind of threat, and certainly if you are in any doubt at all, report it.

@Girth Summit: Here are my answers. James-the-Charizard (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Good work - all correct. Next section below! GirthSummit _(blether) 21:36, 2 July 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.

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

To stop their motivation. Recognition is food for the trolls/vandals, and it motivates to vandalize/troll more.

Exactly right. Of course each person is different, but a common theme amongst trolls and vandals is a craving for attention - they want to piss you off and waste your time, that's exactly what they're doing it for. If you show them that you are annoyed, or you spend time engaging with them, it has the opposite effect to that which you want - it makes them want to cause more disruption. So, the best approach is to ignore, revert, and report for blocking when it becomes necessary. I've had people vandalise my user page, my talk page, and even articles to reference me (see the 'Dante's Inferno' userbox on my user page - I'm kind of breaking the WP:DENY rules with that one, but that one made me laugh and I couldn't help myself...). Don't get riled, just ignore it.

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.)

I would pay attention to the way the edit summary is used and how it’s written. Usually good faith editors when they ask why, their question is clear & concise, usually vandals/trolls will not use an edit summary, and if they do, quite poorly. Also looking at the previous contributions could help too.

Hmm. Perhaps I should have been clearer in the question. What I mean is, say a user who you reverted comes to your talk page and demands an explanation for why you reverted them. There's a conflict there - AGF says that we should assume good faith and communicate with them, but DENY says that we should revert and ignore them. What would you look for to help you make that decision about whether or not to respond?

I think what could help is how they speak to you. Say that, an IP (for arguments sake i'll make one up: 7.5.27.243) comes to my talk page and calmly asks why, there is a good bet of WP:AGF but another IP (random number: 52.37.255.173) comes to my talk page and starts shouting at me or borderline making a personal attack, then you would WP:DENY. That is how I see it.

OK, so that's pretty much exactly what I thought when I did this course! However, actually politeness/anger isn't as good an indicator as you might think. Civility is important of course, but if a good faith but novice editor has spent ages figuring out how the wiki syntax works to make their edit, and then has it reverted immediately, they might get pretty pissed off and go to your talk page to blow off some steam. If you feel that they are tipping over into open personal attacks then by all means report it, but the key is to go back and look at their editing history (as you suggested in your first response) - could you have made a mistake about assuming vandalism? Is there anything in what they say (even if it's expressed rudely) that might explain what they did, and change your mind about whether it was vandalism?

My advice would be as follows: if they are actually threatening or making over-the-top personal attacks, then DENY and report them; if they are rude and pissed off, but you think they might actually have made the edit in good faith, then remain detached and professional, don't engage with the rudeness, and just explain why you reverted, referencing relevant policies where possible; if you are certain that the edits were vandalism, then regardless of whether they are rude and aggressive or sweetness and light, revert and DENY.

Oh, and one more tip. If you ever realise that you reverted when you shouldn't have, then own up to it and apologise, no matter how rude the complainant is. It's embarrassing, especially if the other editor is hostile, but believe me when I say that it's happened to all of us. Don't go down the road of saying 'We all make mistakes, it's no big deal, why are you getting so worked up' - it will lead to more argumentation and wasted words, believe me. If you apologise profusely and explain what happened, the other editor will usually calm down and accept your apology. Something like 'I'm so sorry, when I saw your edit I thought it was vandalism, but I've had a closer look and I can see that I was wrong. My bad, I should have looked more closely in the first instance; please accept my apologies.' That usually does the trick.

@Girth Summit: Here it is. James-the-Charizard (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

First answer definitely correct; second answer, I think I needed to be clearer with the question, please review and comment. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I replied there, I tried my best based on the idea of behavioral evidence. James-the-Charizard (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added a few comments above. What you're saying isn't wrong, but I'd focus more on the edit and less on the rudeness - I've expanded above, please review and let me know if you have any questions or further comment on that. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I have read and understood the above. Thanks for putting me on the right track there. James-the-Charizard (talk)

OK, well we're nearly at the end of the course. The last step before the final exam is the rollback tool - see the next section... GirthSummit _(blether) 18:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

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

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

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

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

It may be used to undo obvious vandalism, or edits from banned/blocked users.

However rollback should not be used for everyday reverting (unsourced content, good faith edits) due to the generic edit summary it leaves.

Yes - basically, everything we discussed before about the red Twinkle rollback feature applies to 'proper' Rollback. That also applies when you use Huggle or Stiki, which is worth remembering - those applications, especially Huggle, allow you to roll back vandalism very quickly indeed - and you are accountable for every use of it. Only use it when the case is clear.

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

Revert the edit, with an edit summary like (reverting accidental rollback)

Yes, that is correct if you didn't mean to revert. If you intended to revert, but think that you really ought to have left an edit summary, you can do a dummy edit (add a space after a full stop or similar) and leave an edit summary explaining the previous revert.

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

You should not. It leaves a generic edit summary, in lieu of letting an editor use one.

Correct. It's actually possible to fiddle about with rollback's settings to make it leave an edit summary, but if I wanted to leave an edit summary, I just do a twinkle green or blue rollback rather than a 'real' rollback.

@Girth Summit: I will request rollback in a bit (gotta do something) but when I do, should I mention i'm in the CVUA course? James-the-Charizard (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd advise you to answer the questions above first (to demonstrate that you've read the documents and know what it's all about), then make your application, linking to this page and pinging me in your application. I'll drop a note of support there. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Sorry about getting too hasty there, answers are above. James-the-Charizard (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Ha ha - no worries, and good answers - I'll look our for the ping from your application at PERM. I'll wait to upload the final exam until that's sorted. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I got Rollback! James-the-Charizard (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations! This is well-deserved. Let me know if you have any questions about using any of the fancy tools it gives you access to. I'll put the final exam questions below. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 06:19, 5 July 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?
If it was the first time, I would WP:AGF and start a discussion with the user, and revert their edit. However if he did it again, then that’s when it goes to vandalism to me. Less mistaking an article, more so becoming WP:NOTHERE, and I would warn and revert, eventually going to WP:AIV if necessary.
Y This is basically correct, but you didn't mention the type of warning. I would advise in this sort of situation that you use the test edit warnings, and escalate with continuing test edit warnings (levels 1-3) until you get to level 4, when you'd give a final warning for vandalism. After that, AIV is the way to go.
A user adds their signature to an article after once being given a {{Uw-articlesig}} warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?
I would warn them the second time, but not in a harsh way, but if they kept doing it, I would likely go to WP:ANI.
Y I'd agree with this. If they are adding useful and well-sourced content at the same time, I'd definitely try to start a conversation with them rather than giving them templated warnings. If they won't engage though, and persist despite multiple requests to stop, then either ANI, or mentioning it to a friendly admin, would be the way to go.
A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?
I would kindly revert and warn the user (based on a WP:POV trip up), but subsequent times, I would warn and revert a second time, and eventually go to WP:ANI.
Y If the article was about John Smith, then this would make sense. If it's in a random article that has nothing to do with John Smith, then you could treat this as vandalism. AIV would probably be better in those circumstances than ANI.
A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
This is less so good faith than earlier. The first time, I would revert and warn the user, and more times would feature the same thing, and eventually a trip to WP:AIV.
Y As with the first example, this is a test edit. Ensure you use the appropriate test edit warnings 1-3 before moving to a level 4 vandalism warning and going to AIV.
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?
Full list of answers:
First time (Good contributions): I would initiate a discussion on their talk page about the content removal.

Second and onward times (Good contributions): I would start to lose my patience, and be inclined to go WP:ANI.

First time (Bad contributions): I would warn them about their conduct.

Second and onward times (Bad contributions): Likely go to WP:AIV.
Y OK, so this is a sensitive one. You are starting correctly, with either a discussion or a warning about content blanking, but what you haven't mentioned is doing some investigation - are the sources reliable? Do they support the assertions that are being removed? It's fine to start with a good faith revert with an edit summary along the lines of 'This appears to be sourced, can you outline your concerns on the article talk page?', but tread carefully if they persist in removing it without discussing. I was once involved in a situation where multiple experienced recent changes patrollers (including myself) basically edit warred with an IP editor to retain material that was defamatory and poorly sourced in an article - it was only when an uninvolved admin looked into it carefully that we realised that the IP editor (who had been blocked by that point...) was absolutely right to remove it. Remember that many IP editors are acting in good faith, but just don't understand our policies and behavioural norms - they might not know how to use talk pages and edit summaries. If you see someone removing content, I'd urge you just to spend a minute to read the content and check the sources - even if they're not communicating. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

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.
UW-blank.
Y
A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
UW-attempt perhaps?
Y Correct - this isn't something you'll come across unless you patrol the edit filter logs. often, a vandal inserting foul language will have been picked up by the edit filter several times before successfully getting their abuse into an article - something to mention if reporting to AIV.
A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
A bit unsure this time, I think though UW-wrongsummary.
Y Not bad - but uw-efsummary is better, it's specifically for edit summaries that trigger the filter.
A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
UW-vandalism.
Y
A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
UW-blank again.
Y Yes - the blanking warning applies to whole articles or to sections.
A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
Likely UW-test.
Y
A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
A bit unsure here, but I would go with UW-vandalism.
Y Yes - it's hard to imagine how that could be done in good faith. (It might be different in an article about Tim Henman, but in Great Britain it doesn't make any sense.)
A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
Probably UW-unsourced.
Y That would work, but uw-biog is better since this is a BLP article, and the assertion is controversial.
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
Definitely UW-delete4im. (there is no 4im warning for page blanking.)
Y
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
They would be reported to WP:AIV.
Y
A user blanks your userpage and replaced it with 'I hate this user' (you have had a number of problems with this user in the past).
Keep calm without getting angry, I would use the UW-upv warning.
Y Alternatively, uw-harass, or straight to AIV (or, if it's a user who has also made good contributions, ANI)
A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
Likely use either UW-test or UW-image.
Y Either would work.

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.
Y
Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
Perhaps A1?
Y
Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
Split on a trio of G3, A1, or G1. I’m leaning towards G1 however.
Y - A1 is the best bet. (It's not G1 - patent nonsense basically needs to be ungrammatical - this sentence makes sense on its own, but it has no context to allow you to work out who Joe is or why this is in any way significant.)
A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
A7.
N Ah - no. If a Smadoodle was a real type of animal, it would be notable (all species of animals are notable; A7 covers individual animals, and is most commonly used when an editor writes an article about their beloved family pet). This is A11 - obviously invented by the author - there is no such creature, nor is it a 'real' mythological creature such as a dragon, nor is it even something from a specific notable work of fiction like a hobbit - it's just made up.
Fuck Wiki!
Easy G3, also A10 too.
Y Definitely G3 - not sure about A10, is that the one you meant? I'm not seeing an existing article about this! GirthSummit _(blether) 10:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

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
Depends on their contributions. If they are a regular editor to most topics on the wiki then they are fine, if they go off advertising, then I would report to WP:UAA.
Y Good answer. I agree - only report if they are writing about their band, or indeed vandalising pages about other bands (attacking the competition, perhaps).
Fartypants
I consider this an inappropriate name, I would report to WP:UAA.
Y It's kind of borderline - I mean, it's a bit rude, but not massively offensive. Personally, I'd look to see what their editing was like. If they were doing good faith stuff, I'd leave them to it; if they were vandalising, I'd report to AIV, with an additional note that their username doesn't inspire confidence that they are WP:HERE.
Brian's Bot
I would ask the user to change their name. The prefix "bot" is on a blacklist, only can be used for well... bots.
Y You can speak to them first if you want, or report directly to UAA for this one if they are editing.
sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
Toughie. I would leave it alone as I didn't see a policy against gibberish. (Though some could consider it disruptive.)
Y So, I'm glad you didn't go straight to report, because you're right, it's not a bright line policy violation. It is however long and difficult to read, and so probably in violation of WP:UNCONF. You could start a conversation with them about it, but personally I'd look at their contribs carefully - a name like that is probably going to be used for a vandalism-only account, which is what I'd report them for if I found evidence of it.
WikiAdmin
Also ask to change the name. Per WP:MISLEADNAME, terms like sysop, admin, etc. can’t be used due to permission confusion.
Y Personally I'd just report immediately if they started editing with this username.
12:12, 23 June 2012
Much like sdaddsga..., I didn't see a policy against timestamps, so I would leave it be.
Y Again, this is a violation of WP:UNCONF, and this time it's a more serious one. It looks like it's intended to replicate the timestamp on a signature, which could only have been done intentionally and would be disruptively confusing in a conversation on a talk page. My advice would be to take this one directly to WP:RFCN.
PMiller
Leave it be. Like BGates in a previous section on usernames, it could have many meanings. Patrick Miller, Phil Miller, Player Miller.
Y
OfficialJustinBieber
Well this one is an easy report to WP:UAA, impersonation.
Y Yes - the last one had a lot of ambiguity - this one doesn't. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

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)?
Now matter how subtle the vandalism gets, you can never edit war when reverting it.
N You should be a bit more careful than this. WP:3RRNO gives an exception to the normal edit warring rules for obvious vandalism - for more subtle stuff, tread more cautiously. There's nothing wrong with getting more eyes on something, perhaps by posting at a relevant notice board or dropping a line to an admin, but don't go beyond 3RR for anything that isn't really blatant.
Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
At WP:AIV.
Y
Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
Complex abuse should be brought up at WP:ANI.
Y
Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
Over at WP:UAA.
Y
Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
I believe at WP:ANI as well.
Y
Where and how should an edit war be reported?
At WP:AN3.
Y
Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
At the BLP noticeboard, explaining why it’s a violation.
Y

@Girth Summit: Do these questions need to be done in any specific order? James-the-Charizard (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope - just ping me when you've done them all and I'll check your answers. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi James - just a ping to let you know I've marked your answers so far - you're doing well, definitely on-track to pass this course, whenever you want to finish the questions. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: On part 2, should I just say what the template is for each, or type in the template text? (Minus the brackets) James-the-Charizard (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Please give the template name - you should see it before the description in the Twinkle menu. Don't put the curly brackets around it so that it doesn't trigger the template to be added to the warning. E.g.: uw-Vandalism1 GirthSummit _(blether) 13:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I've done part two. I'll need to spend a bit more time thinking about part 1, however this section could be done sometime next month. James-the-Charizard (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

That's the last of it Girth Summit. James-the-Charizard (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi James - sorry to be a pain, but could I ask you to have another look at Section 1? What I'm looking for is what you would do in those circumstances - e.g. revert, warn, start a discussion, investigate sources, etc. You've done that for the final question, but not really for the other ones. If you could expand a bit more on those I'd be grateful. Good job on section 5 by the way - just make sure you re-read WP:3RRNO and are aware of the constraints we have to work within when reverting subtle vandalism - it's all too easy to get drawn into an edit war with the best of intentions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: No it’s fine! Sorry about not being clearer. I have revised my answers to include what I would do. James-the-Charizard (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - and well done! Please take a moment to read through the extra guidance I've given above on one or two of the points, but I'm pleased to say that with an overall score of 82% you have passed this course! I will formally acknowledge this shortly, about to go out for a run, but very well done - it's been a pleasure working with you on this, and you've shown a very good understanding of all the key points. Cheers! GirthSummit _(blether) 20:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Completion[edit]

Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy, on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction and graduation from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with 84%. 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.

@Girth Summit: Thank you for taking me on this course, hopefully this will not be the last time we find ourselves again on Wikipedia. James-the-Charizard (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)