User:Poppified/CVUA
Hello Poppified, and welcome to your Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your academy page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me at my talk page.
Make sure you read through Wikipedia:Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.
- How to use this page
This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.
- Once you graduate, I will copy this page into your userspace so you have a record of your training and a reference for the future.
- Curriculum
There are several sections of the training course. In some of them, will be asking you to do perform practical exercises (for example, patrolling recent changes or the abuse log in order to find problematic edits); in others, I will ask you to read certain policies and guidelines, and then ask you some questions about their content. It is not a problem if you give the wrong answer to any of the questions - making mistakes and discussing them is a crucial part of the learning process. For that reason, it is important that you do not attempt to find previous users' training pages in order to identify the 'right' answers to give: all your answers should be your own, so that we can identify and address any misconceptions that you might have. There is no time pressure to complete the course: we will go at whatever pace works for you, and you can take a pause or ask questions at any point along the way.
- Communication
Counter-vandalism work can result in very large watchlists, which can make it more difficult to monitor pages using that alone. For this reason, I will ping you whenever I update this page with some feedback or a new task; I would also ask you to ping me when you have completed a task, so that I get a notification telling me that it's ready for review. See WP:PING for details on how to do this if you aren't sure. Pahunkat (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The start
Gadgets
Twinkle
Twinkle is a highly useful gadget that can be enabled by any autoconfirmed user. It is used to automate a variety of maintenance tasks, including reverting vandalism, tagging pages for deletion and requesting page protection (you'll learn about these later in the course). See Wikipedia:Twinkle for more information about this tool.
Redwarn
Redwarn is a tool specifically designed for reverting vandalism and warning users. You can read its documentation, including how to install the tool, at Wikipedia:RedWarn.
Huggle
Huggle is another anti-vandalism tool which comes in the form of a desktop application. To use Huggle you must have rollback permissions, so we won't be covering Huggle during this course - though feel free to ask me about it upon completion. You can read up about it at Wikipedia:Huggle.
- Enable Twinkle and RedWarn (if you haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled them.
Finding the vandals
There are two main ways to find edits to check for vandalism. The first is through the recent changes log - this can be accessed by clicking the 'Recent changes' link in the 'contribute' section at the left navigation bar, or navigating to Special:Recentchanges. The second way if through monitoring the abuse log, which lists edits which have tripped edit filters - these edits may still go through or may be disallowed depending on the filter. This can be accessed at Special:Abuselog.
Good faith and vandalism
When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful to an article, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. Note that good faith edits are different to completely good edits. While it is necessary to revert good-faith edits, we treat them differently from vandalism, so it is important to recognize the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit. Please read WP:AGF, WP:BITE and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the tasks in this section. I'd suggest starting off with monitoring recent changes.
- Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
- Good Faith Edits
users will add info which is known to them into article , correct spelling according to their vocabulary but add sometimes when adding some info or correcting a info they make small mistakes to the article like broken infobox..etc.Here users will end up making mistakes unintentionally. In Vandalism ; users may add defamatory info, sometimes blank total and add their name or some other to it..etc.Also it's an intentional act.These are my findings about Good Faith edits and Vandalism.Poppified talk 15:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Vandalism is malicious editing with the intent to disrupt the encyclopedia. Good-faith edits are made in good-faith, but fall short of policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:MOS etc...
Question: How about borderline cases? What would you do if you're unsure?
- @Pahunkat: In borderline cases I would check edit summary , history of IP or the user and page history to make decision. If I felt unsure about the edit I would definitely check the article history , check the web about content and user's history to draw a decision.After this to If I feel unsure I will ask help from an experienced one or the user who created article.BestwishesPoppified talk 12:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Things to look at to help you: Edit summaries (for example it's highly unlikely they are "fixing a typo" when they've blanked half the article), usernames (check for violations as well) and the history of the user.
Comment: - WP:AGF stands for Assume good faith. Therefore, in borderline cases assume the editor in question has good intentions
- Please explain why it is important to not to WP:BITE newcomers whose edits may have been made in good faith
Biting the newcomers would deter them from continuing to edit Wikipedia
- Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. These can be from your editing history or from your next recent changes/Abuse log patrol.
| Type | Diff | Trainer's comment |
|---|---|---|
| Good-faith edit | [1] | Broke the infobox, needed to be reverted. Nothing so suggest bad intentions.
|
| Good-faith edit | [2] | Shouting in article and unclear wording, but nothing to suggest bad faith
|
| Good-faith edit | [3] |
|
| Vandalism | [4] |
|
| Vandalism | [5] | If I understand the edit correctly
|
| Vandalism | [6] |  If it was on it's own I would WP:AGF as a test, but the fact they have done so repeatedly, none of their edits are constructive suggests otherwise.
|
Done Hope I did this part correctly. Poppified talk 15:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@Pahunkat:[7] about this edit that user changed the nick name of the club which is Nizam's to Briyani FC (Biryani is dish) .That was the edit that user made on the article.Poppified talk 02:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
A note about Redwarn and Twinkle
Hopefully you'll have noticed that RedWarn allows you three primary options for performing a rollback - green, blue, and red links (see the screenshot). All three will revert all of the most recent consecutive edits made by a single user to a page. The orange button should only be used when a user blanks a large portion of the page without an edit summary that explains why - this is called unexplained removal of content.
Try to use these buttons where possible. The green and the blue ones allow you to add an edit summary - it's described as 'optional', but you should not treat it as such - always leave a brief edit summary, even if it's just 'Rv test edit', or 'Rv unexplained removal of content', or whatever. Use the green one when you think it's a good faith mistake, and the blue one when you're not sure. Only use the red one when you are certain that it is unambiguous vandalism - it saves time, because it leaves a generic edit summary, and all of them will take you directly to the talk page of the person you have reverted, to allow you to use the 'Warn' option to give them a warning. (Also note that you can use the purple "restore this version" button when you need to revert edits by multiple users.) There are more options for 'rollback' buttons if you click the three dots at the very end of the menu, for edits that require reverting because they violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines (for example edits uncompliant with the manual of style, undisclosed paid editing and enforcing violations of WP:3RR).
Likewise, with Twinkle there are three 'rollback' links - once again they are red, blue and green. You should apply the same principles of judgement as for the buttons in RedWarn when deciding which link to use.
Note that, per WP:3RR, An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. However, exceptions apply (see the 3RR page) - including reverting blatant and obvious vandalism. If you're not sure, it's best not to go past three reverts and attempt to engage the editor in discussion.
Poppified - a bit of gadget installing (I see you already have RedWarn), and then a key principle in counter vandalism work. Ping me below when you're finished or if you have any questions. Could you give me a bit of info below as to how experienced in counter-vandalism you feel you are and what you know so far? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Pahunkat: I enabled Twinkle.I have little experience in counter vsndslidm as I mainly focuss on Indian football and world football.But going through those edits some users wants to sign a footballer to that club, some just add abusive contents into their articles , some adding unreferenced things about players , coaches and also some content blanking.These are things I mainly saw in football related articles as vandalism.So i tried be more active in counter vandalism in recent weeks by monitoring recent changes.I think i have a lot learn and develop.BestwishesPoppified talk 18:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Poppified for that. You'll probably find yourself doing RC patrolling on a regular basis during the course, but it's good to see you've already tried a bit. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Pahunkat: Answered Good faith and vandalism section.-Poppified talk 15:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Warning and reporting
When you use RedWarn or Twinkle to warn a user, you have a number of options to choose from: you can select the kind of warning (for different offences), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4, for increasing severity). Knowing which warning to issue and what level is very important. Further information can be found at WP:WARN and WP:UWUL. Please note that most of this is automated on RedWarn; you'll need to pick this only if you pick the blue button.
- Please answer the following questions
- Why do we warn users?
We warns users to alert them they made mistake.In most cases warns are helpful to reducing the mistakes made by new users. But for a user intent to vandalism only it is a remainder for them that some one is watching or seeing their edits.Also it helps to reduce vandalism.Poppified talk 18:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- When would a 4im (only) warning be appropriate?
- If a user got three levels of warning and again vandalise the article I will give user a 4im warning. In some situations where user is making a disruption in article in seconds where you won't enough time to revert a change.i will give a 4im warning there.Poppified talk 18:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Question: What's the difference between a level 4 and a 4im warning, and in what situations do you give out either?
- @Pahunkat: when user make extreme Vandalism we may warn them using a 4im.
Is there a difference between a 4 and 4im?
Is a user vandalizes past a 4 or 4im, then report to AIV in any case. However, a level 4 warning is a final warning (last step on the series of 1,2,3,4), a 4im is an only warning for excessive disruption.
When a user is warned way before and having 3rd level warning .If the user again vandalise a article level 4 warning is given. Poppified talk 16:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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!)
- Yes, I would substitute a template in a user talk Because it could help the user to know about the usage of template and how to use a template.For substituting a template on user talk we should add subst: followed by a braces. Eg: I will use {{subst:uw- vandalism1}} for a user who vandalise a article.(note I have added a space in between uw & vandalism1 to stop it expanding here).Poppified talk 03:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I would substitute a template in a user talk Because it could help the user to know about the usage of template and how to use a template.For substituting a template on user talk we should add subst: followed by a braces. Eg: I will use {{subst:uw- vandalism1}} for a user who vandalise a article.(note I have added a space in between uw & vandalism1 to stop it expanding here).Poppified talk 03:38, 22 February 2021 (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. Note that you must be the user that reverts the vandalism and warns the user. If you have trouble with the wiki markup, tell me and we'll get it sorted out.
| # | Diff of your revert | Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff | Trainer's Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [8] | Vandalism – user added Japanese content in to the article.But after I used a translator to translate language i felt it was a intention vandalise the article.Poppified talk 03:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC) | If I understand the writing correctly, then this is vandalism
|
| 2 | [9] [10] | Vandalism - Same user was evidently adding defamatory language to the article.Reported to AIV as already user was on 4im warning and also harassed a user in their user talk.Poppified talk 04:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC) | Per above
|
| 3 | [11] | unexplained removal of content.Poppified talk 06:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC) | Good revert + warning
|
| 4 | [12] | Blanking some parts of the article and replacing arbic contents.Poppified talk 06:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC) | A later edit by the IP makes me convinced of vandalism, but this diff alone would probably be a test edit
|
| 5 | [13] | Removed afd template from the article. Seems like a COI user.Poppified talk 07:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC) | Now this is interesting. Good revert, but I see a case of Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry or WP:MEAT at the least. Sockpuppetry is when multiple accounts are abused by a single editor - and it's been confirmed
|
| 6 | [14] | addition of defamatory content.Poppified talk 07:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC) | Vandalism, calling the subject of the article names...
|
| 7 | [15] | BLP vandalism and removed a sourced content and replaced with something which is not good to be in a article.Poppified talk 07:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC) |  I'd be inclined to WP:AGF over here, but the line is very thin. But AGF means we assume good faith
|
| 8 | [16] | user replaced her name with something and changed her birthplace and added she is from "A idiotic planet" .Poppified talk 13:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
| 9 | [17] | Obvious Vandalism user removed content added "Daddy is cool".Poppified talk 13:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
| 10 | [18] | Obvious Vandalism along with content blanking and add some info which seems unconstructive.Poppified talk 13:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC) | This is known as page hijacking
|
Poppified, please find the next section above. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@Pahunkat: completed I guess.Poppified talk 13:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Protection and speedy deletion
Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only an administrator can protect or delete pages; however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion or request protection. You can use the RedWarn menu (on the right-hand side, the RPP option) to request page protection. Twinkle can be used to request speedy deletion (the TW menu next to the search bar on top, the CSD option) and also request page protection (the RPP option on the menu).
Protection
Please read the protection policy.
- In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
Answer: When there is a high amount Vandalism, disruption , edit warring from IP users and new users.we can go for a semi-protection.Poppified talk 08:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?
Answer : In articles where there is a regular Vandalism but not in a higher rate.we can go for pending changes protection.Poppified talk 08:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
Answer : In articles where there is content dispute or edit warring between extend confirmed users.we can go for full protection.Poppified talk 08:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Other cases exist (e.g. deletion review), but this is the main one you should know about
- In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
Answer : Where articles are repteadly recreated after it's deletion due to failing notability and other Wikipedia polices in article creation.Poppified talk 08:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
Answer : In situations where frequent Vandalisms occurs in talk page.Then talk page is semi-protected but not a indefinite one.Poppified talk 13:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Question: Do we often protect talk pages? Why/why not?
Answer : No; because both user talk and page talk pages are rarely protected.If there is persistent Vandalism or abuse happens talk pages are protected.Poppified talk 14:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request at WP:RPP below. (Note - it might take you a while to come across a circumstance where this is required - we can continue with the next section of the course before you do this, but when the need arises please post here and ping me).
Poppified - Great start - please see my feedback above. Normally I have both protection and speedy deletion as one section, but this time I've split it into two. As always, if you have any questions please ping me below, likewise when you're finished. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Pahunkat: Done ; but didn't get a page for requesting protection.Poppified talk 13:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.
- In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?
Answer : If an article cannot be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision..etc.In these circumstances page should be speedy deleted. Poppified talk 12:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Question: In what circumstances may you use A-prefixed tags, G-prefixed tags, F, R, etc?
Answer : We may use A prefixed tags in pages in the article (main) namespace. G prefixed tags apply to articles, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files..etc. , F prefixed tags for Files , R prefixed for Redirects , U prefixed tags for userpages and usertalks , C prefixed tags for Categories and P prefixed for portals.Poppified talk 12:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
{{tick} U-prefixed tags are for any page in userspace. G is for general.
- Tag one page in any namespace for speedy deletion. It may take a while to find one, so I'd be willing to move on if you can't find any to tag. Post the page name below. Hint: You'll have a better chance of success at this task if you go through the abuse log to find pages which have tripped filters such as "possible self-promotion in userspace" and similar
[19] @Pahunkat: I have done one 2 days back.Where the user created a Draft:Hannah Job and blanked it after creation.So I tagged it under G7. and I don't have difference due to article is deleted so I put notification difference here.Poppified talk 13:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
That's fine. Twinkle can fully automate the process for you - if you click the TW dropdown menu, select the option 'CSD' and it will tag that page and warn the user in question. Pahunkat (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion examples
In past iterations of this course, students have been asked to go out and tag multiple mainspace pages for deletion, but with the introduction of WP:ACPERM, the amount of straight vandalism that gets created directly in mainspace has reduced dramatically. As such, I'm going to ask you to say how you would act in a set of hypothetical scenarios. What would you do if you saw the page listed in each scenario? Note that not all scenarios may warrant speedy deletion.
- Scenario 1
A user with the username "BobSucks" creates an article called "John Smith" that contains solely the following text:
John Smith is the worst elementary school teacher on the planet.
Answer : Would tag under G10 as it's kind of harassing someone.Also I will report username to UAA.Poppified talk 13:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
Answer : Promotional article would tag under G11 and also the report username to UAA as it seems like name of company.Poppified talk 13:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Scenario 3
A user creates an article titled "Edward Gordon" with the following text:
'''Edward Gordon''' (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 5,250 subscribers on YouTube.
Answer : would go under A7 tag.As it is only mentioned "Aspiring American Actor" so he fails notability.Poppified talk 13:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Scenario 4
A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content:
Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz.
(Attribution: Ritchie333 came up with this scenario as a question to an old RfA candidate. I've borrowed his example here. Hint: Try Google searching a few key terms from this short article.)
Answer : I don't see any CSD tags would work on this article.Through quick search I found these Bazzward is related to Nice.So I think a redirect would be possible here.Poppified talk 13:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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?
Answer: would easily go under a G12 tag as there is clearly mentioned about the rights in the website.Poppified talk 13:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Question: Would there be a difference if the words "all rights reserved" were present?
Answer : should be same as we cannot use as per wikipedia policies.Poppified talk 14:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Scenario 6
A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language. Answer : would Tag A2.Poppified talk 13:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Question: Would you tag an article for A2 if it didn't exist on another language wiki?
Answer : Would add {{Not English}} and list the page in Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English .Poppified talk 14:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Scenario 7
A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
Answer : Would go under G7 as user blanked article after creation.Poppified talk 13:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Scenario 8
A new user creates a user page with nothing but the following content:
Jlakjrelekajroi3j192809jowejfldjoifu328ur3pieisgreat
How would this scenario be different if the page was created in draftspace? How about in article space, or in a user sandbox?
Answer : In article space and Draftsapce if a user creates this one I would tag G1. But for his user space and sandbox there is nothing to be done.Poppified talk 13:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Poppified - please see the above, sorry for the late marking - I didn't get the ping. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Pahunkat: Done. Poppified talk 13:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Poppified a few questions above. Do you think you could also tag another non-G7 page using twinkle? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Pahunkat: Yeah could tag non-G7 pages using twinkle. I did tag a userpage under U5 last week for misuse of userpage (Also answered questions you have added above).Thanks Poppified talk 14:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Revision Deletion and Oversight
Please read WP:REVDEL and WP:OVERSIGHT.
Occasionally, vandalism will be so extreme that it needs to be removed from publicly accessible revision histories - the criteria for these are described in the 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?
Answer : I will email a administrator who are listed in here Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. Poppified talk 15:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Note that categories don't show up if put in wikilinks
- If you believe that it's so serious it needs oversight, how would you request that?
Answer : I will email request to oversight team.Poppified talk 15:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Question: Which email?
Answer :Special:EmailUser/Oversight. Poppified talk 15:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Poppified, please see the new section above - this time on Revision deletion (often abbreviated to revdel) and oversight. I am actually about to send an email to oversight after I add the section to the page. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Pahunkat: answered above questions.Poppified talk 15:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Poppified - just one more above - what's the oversight email?
@Pahunkat: answered.Poppified talk 15:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Emergencies
I hope this never happens, but as you participate in counter-vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible that you may come across a threat of physical harm. In the past, we have had vandals submit death threats in Wikipedia articles, as well as possible suicide notes. The problem is, Wikipedia editors don't have the proper training to evaluate whether these threats are credible in most cases.
Fortunately, there's a guideline for cases like this. Please read Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm carefully and respond to the questions below.
- Who should you contact when you encounter a threat of harm on Wikipedia? What details should you include in your message?
'Answer : I will contact Wikimedia foundation through this email address emergency@wikimedia.org and also will include difference. Alsowill contact admin through a IRC. Poppified talk 16:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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)?
Answer : Anyways it would be reported to Wikimedia foundation as per the policies. Let them evaluate it. Poppified talk 16:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
We do not have the proper training to assess threats of harm
Poppified, another small section above. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Pahunkat: answered .Thanks Poppified talk 16:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Usernames
Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol the User creation log to check for new users with inappropriate usernames (note that you can set this to view 500 users rather than the default 50 - I find that easier to scroll through quickly, and the link on my userpage takes you there directly). There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed:
- Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia (words like admin, sysop, Wikimedia Foundation, etc), usernames that impersonate other people (either famous people, or other Wikipedians' usernames), or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
- Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.
- Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
- Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.
Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particular attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.
- Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why). If you need more information before deciding what to do, explain what more you need.
- BGates
Answer: Seems like a fine username.But if this user violates Wikipedia with this username then user should be reported to UAA.Poppified talk 12:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Question: You put "But if this user violates Wikipedia with this username then user should be reported to UAA.". What does that mean?
Answer : It was a mistake from my side . Actullay I mean if the user edits articles related Bill Gates. Then user should be reported to UAA.Poppified talk 12:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Pakunhat
Answer: Seems like impersonating Pahunkat.should be reported to UAA. Poppified talk 12:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Misleading username
- J0E B1DEN
Answer: misleading username should be reported to UAA. Poppified talk 12:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- JoeAtBurgerKing
Answer: Didn't feel anything bad about username. So ig it's okay. Poppified talk 12:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
This type of username is explicitly allowed
- JoeTheSysop
Answer:Have to check whether this user has Sysop permission.If this doesn't have one then would report to UAA.Poppified talk 12:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
In general these names won't happen anyway, even for admins
- Play on name of student
Answer: Seems fine. But have to check what this user does and would report to UAA or AIV if this user breaks Wikipedia policies. Poppified talk 12:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC) 
Facepalm Copy and paste error from a template. Ignore...
- LMedicalCentre
Answer: Seems like a Promotional user name as per WP:ORGNAME.so would take it to UAA. Poppified talk 12:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC) only report users for ORGNAME if their edits make if they make edits about the company. However, this implies shared use in any case
- Yallaredumb
Answer: Disruptive username. Would report to UAA. Poppified talk 12:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Christopher Smith
Answer: It's a fine username. Poppified talk 12:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Question: What would happen in the following circumstances?
- The user edits Microsoft
- The user edits Christopher Smith (English actor)
- The user edits Arts and Humanities Research Council
Answer: I would report the username to UAA.Poppified talk 12:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- For all three? And what are the reasons behind each decision?
@Pahunkat:
Answer : For Arts and Humanities Research Council and Christopher Smith (English actor) these both pages mentions about Christopher Smith like the username of this user. For Microsoft in my quick browsing I found one of Vice president's name is Christopher Smith.Poppified talk 18:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
2 needs to be reported, same with three (in 3 the subject also has their own article). I didn't expect there to be a christopher smith associated with microsoft - but I'll trust you there. Pahunkat (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oshwaah
Answer: Seems like impersonating Oshwah one of the Wikipedia admins.So report to UAA.Poppified talk 12:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- 😜
Answer: It's non script username So I would take to UAA.Poppified talk 12:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- 1kdimfi3jgoerto4u5urt9u3u93dhoweeherwrwehehehe
Answer: It's disruptive username .So would take it to UAA. Poppified talk 12:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- P0ppifi3d
Answer : Impersonating me so would report to UAA.Poppified talk 12:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Poppified, please see the above section on our username policy. Occasionally, you will come across usernames that violate policy and need to be reported. Remember to read the username policy above carefully. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Also, I noticed that a question earlier on was unanswered - under what circumstances can a page be speedy deleted? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Pahunkat: Answered these sections also the question I missed to answer.Poppified talk 12:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Pahunkat: Answered questions you left above and in the speedy deletion section.Thanks--Poppified talk 12:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Poppified, I've followed up on one, this should be quick - please see above. Pahunkat (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Dealing with difficult users
Occasionally, some vandals will not appreciate your good work and try to harass or troll you. In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, you should not engage with them and leave a note at WP:ANI. If they vandalize your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. Please read WP:DENY.
- Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?
Answer :Recognition is a motivation for vandalism. So if we continues engage with them it will like food for them to feed on. Denying them neutralises the motive for vandalism.Poppified talk 07:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Many vandals vandalize just for the sake of attention. Denying them attention removed their motivation for vandlaism. Pahunkat (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Poppified, please see the above. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Pahunkat: answered. Thanks-Poppified talk 11:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Rollback
In light of your recent contributions, I expect that if you apply for the rollback permission at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, an administrator would be happy to enable it on your account, but first we should demonstrate that you understand what the tool is, and the responsibilities that go along with it.
The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced counter vandalism operatives to revert vandalism with the click of one button, not unlike the "rollback" button that you've already been using in Twinkle. This would give you a new rollback button in addition to the three you've been seeing in Twinkle. The new rollback button is slightly faster than the Twinkle rollback button, but more importantly, having the rollback right gives you access to downloadable counter-vandalism software like Huggle and Stiki.
If you're interested, take a look at our rollback guideline at WP:Rollback and feel free to answer the questions below. The rollback right is not an essential part of this course, so if you're not interested, feel free to say so and we'll skip this section.
- Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.
Answer : To revert obvious vandalism , to revert edits in userspace , to revert edits made by banned or blocked users and also to revert repeated edits that are not helpful for Wikipedia.Poppified talk 16:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Also to revert your own edits
Question: What do you mean by "repeated edits that are not helpful for wikipedia?" And if they were made in good-faith, what must you do before using rollback?
Answer : I mean continues editing tests there. I will revert it as good faith edit only if it make any disruption.Then will leave welcome message in the users talk page.Poppified talk 10:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
In this case, rollback can be used to revert widespread edits by a new user (for example the repeated addition of links in an article body, even if in good faith and aren't spam). However, you must bring it up with the user, and be prepared to explain your actions to anyone who questions the rollback
- Hopefully this will never happen, but it does occasionally. If you accidentally use rollback, what should you do?
Answer: I will use Redwarn to revert my edit and will leave edit summary it was a accidental rollback.Poppified talk 16:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC) or WP:TW
- Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?
Answer : I think rollback only will leave generic edit summary.So it is better to use twinkle or Redwarn if I need to leave edit summary.Poppified talk 16:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Always use RW/TW if you wish to leave an edit summary. Rollback always leaves generic edit summaries
Poppified, please see the above section. I'm not sure if an admin will decline a request based on the number of reverts you've done so far, but I can't see any major red flags on a quick glance. A lot of your reverts are in subject areas I'm unfamiliar with, but you've demonstrated understanding during the course. Of course, rollback isn't needed to fight vandalism - it's just helpful. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@Pahunkat: answered these questions.Thanks 16:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Monitoring period
Congrats, that's the end of the theory! Now that we've been through everything that you need to know as a vandal patroller, you will be given a 5 day monitoring period. During this time, you are free to revert vandalism (and edit Wikipedia) as you normally do; I will monitor your progress in counter-vandalism. If there are any issues, I will raise them with you below and if you have any problems or difficult decisions, you are free to ask them below. After five days, if there's been no major issues, you will take the final test; passing this will mean you graduate from the CVUA. Good luck!
5 day period - Starts 6 March 2021
Poppified - that's all the theory you need to know. Now comes the monitoring period - try to do a bit of recent changes patrolling every day, and fully demonstrate your knowledge of everything above. Ping me below if you have any questions, and I'll do likewise if I have any feedback that requires attention. Thanks, Pahunkat Alternate Account (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Pahunkat: Can I request for Rollback Rights now? Actually I got two rejections in last 90 days.First time I wasn't much involved in Vandalism activities second time I enrolled in CUVA course here. And admin asked me to complete it.So do you think I am ready to apply for rights as your my instructor.Regards--Poppified talk 12:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Review
Hello Poppified, sorry for the kate reply. I went through the majority of your reverts from the 6th to the 11th. Most were fine, but there were a few minor things that came up:
- At Special:Diff/1010827844, you reverted this edit as a quick revert for vandalism. I looked at the edit and it doesn't seem like a clear-cut case of vandalism - perhaps a "rv factual error" or the corresponding option in the RW menu (click the three dots on the diff page) would have been a better option.
- For Special:Diff/1010669933 use an edit summary (e.g. the one above) - you should always give one if the reason for the revert isn't clear at a quick glance.
- You made a good revert here and gave a uw-vandalism1 here. This is perfectly fine, but next time consider npov1 etc in situations like these.
- Here you gave the user a level 4 warning after another level 4 warning - this was unnecessary, if there was no AIV report at the time then report to AIV, but I'm guessing more likely what happened was that there was already a report at AIV, in which case no warnings were needed (tell me if I'm wrong on this one).
- After your correct revert here, you left a message on the IP's talk page that didn't really explain the reasons for the revert - whilst the edits were made in good faith, perhaps a more detailed warning/welcome template could have been used?
- Well done on AGF here, but do remember to append something like "rv test" at the end and warn the user for test editing (level one warnings are more informative than threatening with blocks, so don't be afraid to use them)
- Here you reverted as "non-constructive" and warned as such, but a removal of content revert and warning could have been more useful.
I would stress that the majority of your reverts and warnings were fine. Did anything come up during the monitoring period that you wanted to raise with me? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- With regards to rollback, administrators reviewing requests are primarily looking to make sure that you are experienced enough, use warnings appropriately and can distinguish between good-faith and vandalism edits. The first two you easily meet (though do remember to use specific warning templates if possible). The third you have demonstrated in the first section that we did, whilst there was not many reverting of good-faith edits during the monitoring period I think an admin would be alright to enable rollback on your account. If you want to make doubly sure, you can wait until after the final exam before applying since there is material on WP:AGF there. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk)
@Pahunkat: I had doubt on some reverts I made during this monitoring period. After going through this review part I cleared it. About two reverts I made without edit summary those two times my system got hanged and I couldn't put the edit summary there. Next about two 4 level warning I thought giving one more warning would be useful.Now I understood the blunder I made in these two situations.ThanksPoppified talk 06:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- That's good to know Poppified - are we alright to move on to the final exam now? Passing the final exam will mean graduation from the CVUA.Pahunkat (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
@Pahunkat: yeah , we can move on to final exam.ThanksPoppified talk 12:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Final Exam
Please read each of the following questions carefully, and ensure that you have responded fully - some of them ask you to expand on what you would do in different situations. When responding to numbered questions please start your response with "#:" (except where shown otherwise - with **). You don't need to worry about signing your answers.
Part 1
- For each of these examples, please state whether you would call the edit(s) described as vandalism or good faith edit, a reason for that, and how you would deal with the situation (ensuring you answer the questions where applicable).
- A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article, having never edited before. Would you treat it differently if they had done the same thing once before?
Answer:If it is the first time, I will assume it as a good faith and give a level one warning. If the user had done one before I will consider it as vandalism and if the user kept on continuing this after I gave all 4 levels of warning I would report it to WP:AIV.
- A user adds their signature to an article after once being given a {{Uw-articlesig}} warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?
Answer: I would give {{uw-disruptive2}} , if the user kept doing it I would consider it as a vandalism and finally afteri give all 4 levels of warning would report at WP:AIV.
- 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?
Answer: For the first i would assume it as a good faith. If it continues would consider as a Vandalism. After I give all 4 levels of warning and then would report to AIV.
- A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
Answer: For the first time , I would assume it as good faith and give {{uw-test1}}. But if it continues I would consider it as a Vandalism and finally after I give all 4 levels of warning, would report to WP: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?
Answer: I would give the user a {{uw-delete1}} warning. Also will ask user to raise their issue in the article talk page. If the user kept on continuously removing after I warned the user with level 4 warning then I would report the user to WP:AIV.
Part 2
- Which templates warning would give an editor in the following scenarios. If you don't believe a template warning is appropriate outline the steps (for example what you would say) you would take instead.
- A user blanks Cheesecake.
{{uw-delete1}}
- A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
{{uw-attempt1}}
- A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
{{uw-disruptive1}}
- A user puts "CHRIS IS WEIRD!" on Atlanta Airport.
{{uw-vandalism1}}
- A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
{{uw-delete1}}
- A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
{{uw-test1}}
- A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
{{uw-vandalism1}}
- A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
{{uw-unsourced1}}
- A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
{{uw-delete4im}}
- A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
Would report user to AIV.
- 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).
Would report it at WP:AN and also revert their edits in my userpage. ANI would be better
- A user adds a spam link to Horoscope, no previous warnings
{{uw-spam1}}
- A user removes an AfD notice from an article whilst the discussion is ongoing, they have received a level 2 warning for doing the same thing
{{uw-afd3}}
- A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
{{uw-vandalism1}} or {{uw-delete1}} {{uw-test1}}- agf, not sure how it can be applicable under delete1 either
Part 3
- What CSD tag you would put on the following articles? (The content below represents the entire content of the article).
- Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
- Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
- Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
- A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
Hoax article WP:G3
- wiki is annoying and useless even I can edit it so dont use it
- He is an olympic swimmer
Part 4
- Are the following new (logged in) usernames violations of the username policy? Describe why or why not and what you would do about it (if they are a breach).
- TheMainStreetBand
Shared username. I Would report to UAA Implies</ie> shared use
- SUBSCRIBETOKURZGESAGT
Promotional username . I would report to UAA if they make promotional edits
- Brian's Bot
Check whether it is a bot or not. If it is a bot there is no action needed. If it is not a bot then I would report it to UAA.
- sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
Disruptive username.I would report it to UAA.
- WikiAdmin
If the user is a Admin there is no need of action (Generally I didn't see any admins having admin as their username). If the user doesn't has would take it to UAA.
- Coles' Staff
Shared username would take it to UAA.
- 12:12, 23 June 2012
Misleading username. Would take it to UAA.
- PMiller
Can be a real name too as real names are permitted.
Question: In what circumstances could this not be acceptable?
If this user make edits on Master P (Master P 's full name is Percy Miller) or Paul Miller.Then this user should be reported to UAA.
In these cases, the user must verify their identity before being allowed to edit under the username.
- RealDonaldTrump
Misleading username. Would take it to UAA.
Part 5
- Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.
- Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
As I am reverting the edits I won't engaging in edit war. But can open a discussion in article's talk page to sort the thing out.
- Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
- Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
- Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
- Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
- Where and how should an edit war be reported?
- Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
Part 6
- Find and revert five instances of good faith edits. Place the diffs below.
- 1 Likely a test, but it broke the template
- 2
Question: Can you explain what is wrong with this edit?
Here the user removed that political party's involvement in a alliance. So I reverted considering it as a good faith edit. @Pahunkat:
Likely an opinion of sorts by the user then - note also that pings don't work unless you sign them.
- 3 Likely a test
- 4 Though this needs reverting as only people with articles should be included on such pages, AGF should be applied here
- 5
Borderline content dispute, but they key thing here is that you have applied WP:AGF
- Find and revert five instances of vandalism. Place the diffs below, along with that for any warnings/reports issued.
- 1 I cannot see the diff and therefore cannot judge the edit
- 2 I'd be inclined to AGF if it were the edit alone. But their contrib history, along with the keyboard-smash edit summary, just push it over the boundary for AGF for me.
- 3
AGF should be applied here. This is likely the user's personal opinion. Remember, AGF stands for Assume good faith. - 4
- 5 reported this user because this user has already got a level 3 warning and I gave level 4 warning. [20] This difference where I reported this user.
Good report to AIV, was clearly going to continue.
Poppified - sorry for the delay, here it is! Parts 1-5 are based off theory alone, part 6 has a practical element. It would help if you linked to the relevant policies you use in your answer. Good luck - passing this will mean graduation from the CVUA! Pahunkat (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@Pahunkat: Answered.Poppified talk 13:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@Pahunkat: Answered the question.ThanksPoppified talk 15:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC) @Pahunkat: Can I lodge request for Rollback now ?? Thanks Poppified talk 14:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Poppified, just before you do so and I graduate you from CVUA, I was wondering why you thought diff number 3 for vandalism was a bad-faith edit? Pahunkat (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello @Pahunkat: , I consider it as a bad faith because the same user did that addition two times and both revisions where reverted by other users. When I reverted it it was that user's third edit. So I consider it as a bad faith.ThanksPoppified talk 16:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I see where you're coming from, not sure how I missed that. In this case, this seems to be a content dispute rather than vandalism - I would have tried engaging the editor in a discussion rather than treating it as vandalism, even though the IP was being disruptive and edit warring (which is a different matter and also can lead to a block). Pahunkat (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello @Pahunkat: , I consider it as a bad faith because the same user did that addition two times and both revisions where reverted by other users. When I reverted it it was that user's third edit. So I consider it as a bad faith.ThanksPoppified talk 16:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Completion
Poppified, Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy, on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction and graduation from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with a score of 94%. Well done! Pahunkat (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
As a graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox (make sure you replace your enrollee userbox) as well as the graduation message posted on your talk page (this can be treated the same as a barnstar).
{{User CVUA|graduate}}:
 | This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate. |