User:Girth Summit/CVUA/Clovermoss

Hello @Clovermoss:, 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, I 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) 22:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The start

Twinkle

Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.

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

@Girth Summit: I have had Twinkle enabled for a few months at this point. Would you like me to reread the guide? Clovermoss (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Y Only if you feel that you need to re-read it. In my experience, most students end up re-reading the relevant policies more than once - I do so myself every once in a while, it's never a bad idea to compare your practice with the actual letter of the law from time to time. However, if you are comfortable with the rules for using Twinkle, I'm happy to AGF and move on. The next section assumes that you have read WP:VANDALISM, and so understand the difference between what we call vandalism, and other forms of assorted nonsense. Good luck! GirthSummit _(blether) 23:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism

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

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

@Girth Summit: Vandalism can take many forms, but it deliberately harms the purpose of Wikipedia. Edits can be unconstructive and not malicious - edits like this are not vandalism, but good faith edits. One way I might distinguish whether or not a particular edit is vandalism would be to ask myself if this could be a mistake made by someone unfamiliar with editing, but trying to help. It's important to not discourage new editors. Would you like me to elabroate with specific examples in WP:NOTVANDALISM? Clovermoss (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, that's pretty much the gist of it. Don't get sucked into enthusiastic non-policy-compliant edit wars by accident -we have specific exclusions to WP:3RR to cover CV stuff, but as soon as it becomes about something other than pure vandalism, don't get drawn in. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism

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

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

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

@Girth Summit: Good faith but unhelpful

[1]

Actually, this one was OK. If it had been made on its own, and not followed up, I'd agree that it needed to be reverted; however, in the diffs that follow, the user populated the table - they had just copied an example table from elsewhere, then filled in the details. I guess that in an ideal world they would have done this in their sandbox and copied the finished table into the article, or use the 'Show Preview' button to check their changes and then make them all in a single diff, but there's not really anything wrong with what they did.

[2]

Agree here - without a source or an article about the individual to verify the information, this shouldn't have been added.

[3]

No, this was a good edit. The article was originally pointing at a redirect page - it's considered better practise to target links at the proper article title. It's the kind of thing that Wikignomes go around doing all the time.

Vandalism

[4]

Yes. If it had just been the long string of 'oooooo' inserted into the word 'geologically', I might have AGFed and classified this as a test edit, but the mention of slavery after Africa convinces me that this is vandalism.

[5]

Yes - silly vandalism.

[6]

Clovermoss (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, probably. It could be a form of test edit, but it's pretty disruptive and probably silly vandalism.

OK, good work on these - see above for some feedback about the good faith ones, I actually think that a couple of them were good edits, but you were right about all of the vandalism ones. I'm going to paste the next section below in a moment. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Next section is below, but I noticed that you didn't answer the question above about explaining, in your own words, what we mean by vandalism on Wikipedia. I think the diffs above show that you've got a good understanding of this, but just for the sake of completeness please could you address that above, then look at the next bit. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I answered the question earlier, above. I saw that the question was duplicated here and ignored it. Would you like me tp copy the answer (and your response)? Clovermoss (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

D'oh! No, my bad, I goofed when copy/pasting there, of course you've already answer it. Please proceed to the next section... GirthSummit _(blether) 14:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

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

Please answer the following questions

Why do we warn users?

@Girth Summit: To notify them that they've violated a policy or guideline after we have reverted their changes. If an editor hasn't been warned, they might not understand why their changes were reverted. I think the intention of the warning(s) is that hopefully, it will be read and followed. Clovermoss (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of it. The other part is to allow other counter vandalism editors to see that this isn't a 'first offence' - the warnings show a record of repeated behaviour, and they show that we have dealt with it appropriately, so when they are reported to AIV an admin will have no problem with blocking them.

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

@Girth Summit: When there has already been excessive or continuous disruption. Generally, this type of warning should be avoided as it assumes bad faith, and it should not be used if the editor has made good faith edits. An example where this could have been used might have been at User talk:Circleati, before they were blocked, after they made these edits to April Fools' Day: [7], [8], and [9]. This was pretty much my first experience with vandalism and I didn't know how to use user warnings yet. Clovermoss (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes - if someone is doing lots of obviously bad faith vandalism, but hasn't been warned yet, you can go to 4im; also with especially egregious material, like an unsourced accusation on a BLP of sex crimes, or inserting racist/sexist/homophobic abuse into an article or similar.

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!)

@Girth Summit: Yes. According to WP:SUBST#User talk namespace, all Category:User warning templates should be substituted. Here is a diff for how I substituted one of these warnings in the past: [10]. My edit summmary should have included which template I was using and I should have substituted for the article title in the warning itself by adding an additional parameter. Clovermoss (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes - Twinkle does this for you, so you shouldn't have to worry about it, but just in case you ever place a warning without using Twinkle, that's how to do it.

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

@Girth Summit: Revert the vandalism and make a report at WP:ANV. Clovermoss (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting - I've never seen it called ANV before, but the link works! We usually call it AIV, and reporting is very straightforward with Twinkle (don't attempt to do it manually - it's really tricky!)

@Girth Summit: Just wanted to mention here that I have successfully made reports manually before, but it's good to know that Twinkle can do it automatically. Also, I used that shortcut because it make sense to me as an acronym I can remember - Adminstrator's Noticeboard for Vandalism. Clovermoss (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm not saying you're wrong - I mean, the link works, so obviously that's a name people use, it's just one that hasn't entered into my 'alphabet soup' vocabulary yet! Good to know that you've reported there successfully before - I did it manually myself a couple of times in my early days, and was mightily relieved when I realised how easy it was with Twinkle. When you revert a user with Twinkle, it will take you directly to the account/IP's talk page; from there, click the Twinkle menu, select ARV, and then just tick the relevant boxes. The whole process takes about 5 seconds :-) GirthSummit _(blether) 20:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

OK @Clovermoss: - good work so far, on to the next task. Next time though, don't feel that you have to ping me with every individual update to the page - just ping me when you're finished the task, or if you have a question you'd like me to ask. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 20:02, 24 August 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	[11]	[12]	That was an interesting one. The first time, I'd have probably taken that as a test edit, since the comment didn't seem to make any sense. However, since they tried to delete the whole page after your revert, I think it's safe to assume it was vandalism. I'm a bit confused about the warning history though - your warning came 8 minutes after your revert, and indeed six minutes after ClueBot had warned them for their second bit of vandalism - did you forget to give the warning at first, or get caught up some something else? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Hang on a minute - just looked more closely at the warning template - did you add that manually, is that why it took you a while to do it? Use Twinkle for warning people - when you revert them, it should take you automatically to their talk page. From the Twinkle drop-down menu, select Warn, and then just select the level and type of warning you want to give - it takes about 5 seconds, and is enormously easier than adding the template manually. Plus, you didn't substitute the template, as we discussed above - Twinkle does this automatically for you. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC) @Girth Summit: Yes, in that case, I edited the talk page manually, and you're right, it's faster to use TW, so I will. In this case, I edit conflicted with Cluebot because they made another edit to the same page after I had reverted a previous edit, but before I had finished the warning. Clovermoss (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
2	[13]	[14]	Yes - this is definitely vandalism. Well done for spotting that there was still some vandalism there after your first revert - note that it you use one of Twinkle's 'Rollback' buttons (instead of 'Restore this version'), it will automatically revert all of the latest edits by the account/IP you are reverting. In cases of obvious vandalism like this, it's quickest to use the red 'rollback (VANDAL)'. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
3	[15]	[16]	Yep - silly vandalism, revert and warn.
4	[17]	[18] Note: I was conflicted about whether or not I should use uw-vandalism2, I went with uw-npov1 instead. Was this the right choice?	Sorry for the slow response Clovermoss - your warning was fine, either POV or vandalism would be appropriate in a case like this. Looks like it was effective too - the ip hasn't edited since. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
5	[19]	[20]	Y Yep, silly vandalism.
6	[21]	[22]	Y Again, silly vandalism, probably kids researching an essay.
7	[23]	[24] Girth Summit I'm not sure if this truly counts as vandalism, as I'd like to assume good faith (it might have been a test edit, afterall, and the reason for removing the content is not explained). However, I thought I should bring in one of my recent pending changes reviews, because I've had the right for awhile and I want to make sure that I'm using it correctly. Clovermoss (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)	Clovermoss OK, so there are a few things to consider here. You're right that without an edit summary, this looks dodgy - but with content removal, especially in a BLP, tread carefully. So, I look at the content that was removed - an assertion about the subject's Italian/Dutch ancestry, which seems fairly uncontroversial, and a couple of refs. I was able to access the second ref, which supported the assertion about who her father is, but it doesn't mention that she is Italian/Dutch. I am not able to access the first ref however - probably because I'm in the UK and it's a US media source (they often block European IPs) - you didn't mention whether you were able to access this, but I'm going to assume that you weren't. So, from my perspective, we've got a fairly uncontroversial assertion, which I'm not personally able to verify but may be supported by a ref, being removed by an IP editor without an edit summary. In these circumstances, I would also have reinstated it, and you were right to warn the IP about unexplained removal of content; however, if they were to remove it again, this time with an edit summary like 'This stuff isn't in the source', then I'd probably leave it for someone who can read the source to deal with. Note that this balance would be different if it were a more controversial assertion. If the content that was removed said something that could potentially be defamatory, e.g. the subject had taken drugs as a teenager, or she had been arrested for assault, or whatever, I would not reinstate that content into an article unless I was able to satisfy myself that the source supported the assertion, and that it was a very high-quality RS. People often remove dubious content for very good reasons, and they often don't understand things like edit summaries - don't automatically assume that an IP removing apparently sourced content is acting improperly. Hope that all makes sense! GirthSummit _(blether) 06:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
8	[25]	[26]	Y Yep - more silly vandalism.
9	[27]	[28]	Y The name change, and change to the instrument, could have been good faith; however, the addition to the name of his partner was too ridiculous to take as good faith.
10	[29]	[30] Girth Summit pinging you so you know I have finished the 10 diffs.	Y More silly vandalism.

Good work on these Clovermoss - see my comments above. Please continue to revert vandalism and warn users to keep building up your experience - no need to post any more diffs here, but if you come across anything unusual and would like me to take a look, post a note here (with a ping) or on my talk page and I'll assist. I think you've got a handle on this though, so we can move on to the next section - see below. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:06, 29 September 2019 (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 Twinkle menu to request page protection or speedy deletion (the RPP or CSD options).

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

When articles have experienced high levels of vandalism by unregistered (I.P. address) editors. Semi-protection prevents unregistered editors from directly editing an article, but requests to edit can still be made on the talk page or WP:Request for edit if the talk page is protected. If an article recicves vandalism from unregistered editors frequently but not enough to warrant semi-protection, pending changes protection might be a suitable alternative. Clovermoss (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

To re-state my answer to the last question, pending changes protection might be a suitable alternative to semi-protection if the disruption/vandalism to the article is infrequent but is also a peristing issue. Articles with a high level of distruption/vandalism should be semi-protected instead. Other reasons for pending changes protection include protection against violations of the WP:BLP policy and copyright violations. Clovermoss (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Y Good answers to these questions - yes, semi-protection is usually applied temporarily to articles that are attracting a high level of vandalism from different IPs/new accounts - often because the subject is in the news. Pending changes is usually applied for longer periods, when an article persistently attracts lower levels of vandalism it's more effort to maintain, because people have to review the edits, but it allows good faith contributions from IPs through which is a good thing.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

In certain very specific circumstances and if a lower page protection is suitable, that should be used instead. Full protection should only be used if there is a demonstrated need for it and should be performed by an uninvolved adminastror. In content disputes involving edit warring, full protection could be used to create a WP:Stable version of an article. While under full protection, all edits to the article should be uncontroversial changes. However, the stable version should not be a violation of BLP or against other policies, and discretion and careful evaluation of this is important. It can also be used for History only review, but that is not something that would be applicable to my counter-vandalism efforts. As for vandalism, full protection should only be used if absolutely nessecary, and I should rarely if ever, have the need to request it. Clovermoss (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes - since this also stops experienced regular editors from accessing an article, it's quite unusual - it's mostly used to stop disruption when there is an edit war going on between good faith regulars. It's not something that I've ever applied for actually - it doesn't come up much in counter vandalism, in the strict sense of the word.

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

Pages can be "salted" through creation protection. This should be used if a page has been deleted, but recreated several times. Since WP:ACPERM has been introduced, these requests should be rare and for pages outside of mainspace. If a page has been salted and an editor wishes to re-create it, they should contact an adminstrator, make a request at requests for page protection, or go through the deletion unreview process. Clovermoss (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Talk pages should not normally be semi-protected, and a request should have a suitable rationale. Talk pages can be protected after high levels of I.P. vandalism, but this level of protection is typically of a short duration. While protected, an unprotected talk page should also be linked. Clovermoss (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Again - this isn't something I've ever had to request, but if a talk page were, for example, being used to post controversial statements about an identifiable person, or offensive abuse, by multiple IPs/new users, then this might be necessary. A BLP violation is a BLP violation, wherever it is posted.

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).

@Girth Summit: I have not made any requests for page protection recently, but if past reports are allowed, here are some diffs: [31], [32]. I think I've made some other more recent requests, but I'd need more time to look for them. Clovermoss (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Clovermoss Hi - past reports are indeed allowed, and I'll happily accept that one as evidence that you are able to do this. It looks like you did that one manually - you've probably already realised this, but just in case: Twinkle can do it for you, and (as with everything else!) it makes the process much easier. Just navigate to the page you want protecting, select RPP from the Twinkle menu, and fill in the blanks - just takes a few seconds.

I'll review your answers above and give you some feedback tomorrow - time to go and make dinner! Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Clovermoss - Good answers. Next section below...

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

Girth Summit Only if a page meets the specific criteria. There's abbreviations for different criteria: G for general, A for articles, R for redirects, F is for files, U is for user pages, T for templates and P for portals. To tag an article for speedy deletion, it has to meet the specified criteria for CSD. An example of CSD G7 would be Draft:Dora Saves The Crystal Kingdom (DVD). G7 can only be requested by an author with substantial contributions to the page in good faith (in this case, when I realized that my first attempt to create an article was not a notable topic, see this discussion for further context). I do have some other experience with tagging articles for speedy deletion, most of which have been copyright violations under G12. I also have some experience tagging G11, specifically db-spamuser. However, speedy deletion should be something that is taken with care. An article might not be suitable for inclusion for many reasons, but if it doesn't meet CSD criteria, it should not be tagged for speedy deletion. There's other WP:Deletion processes on Wikipedia for pages that do not meet the speedy deletion criteria. Clovermoss (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Good answer Clovermoss, so much better than some people who just copy/paste the criteria as their answer! The key point is that it's only to be used in blatant cases, and when the criteria clearly apply. My experience is similar to yours - G11 and G12 are the most commonly used, although I've tagged a few A7 (people) and, unfortunately, some rather nasty G10s in my time. It's good that you've got some experience in this - take a look at the following examples... GirthSummit _(blether) 17:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion examples

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

Scenario 1

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

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

@Girth Summit: I'm kind of unsure about this. I thought G10 might apply, but after further consideration I decided that I would probably tag an article like this as G3, specifically db-vandalism. To be even more specific, I'd identify it as silly vandalism according to WP:Vandalism#Types of vandalism. This article fits under the included explanation of "creation of nonsensical and obviously unencyclopedic pages." I was hesistant about using G10 because "worst elementary school teacher on the planet" doesn't stand out to me as material intended to intimidate or harass, and the more likely scenario is an elementary school student that dislikes their teacher. Clovermoss (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Either category would work Clovermoss. If you look at your Twinkle options for CSD, there's a G10 option labelled 'Wholly negative unsourced BLP' - that's the one I would use here, but G3 vandalism would also work fine. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:56, 27 October 2019 (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.

This page should be tagged for speedy deletion, because it meets G11. Since it's a user page and the username is promotional, db-spamuser in particular should be used. GoodTimesLLC could also be reported to WP:UAA since their username would be a blatant violation of username policy per WP:ORGNAME. Clovermoss (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yep - clearly promotional. Just to save you some time, if you've used db-spamuser on a userpage a separate UAA report isn't necessary - the admin deleting the page should also assess and act on the username violation. If it was a page in article space, then yes I'd recommend a UAA report.

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.

My first thought looking at this is that this individual likely isn't notable. There aren't any references to independant reliable sources and that's important considering that this is a BLP. It's possible that A7 might be applicable here, but I think that I would probably tag this article for WP:BLPPROD instead, since the article is completely unsourced. Clovermoss (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that A7 would be applicable here, as there aren't really any credible claims to significance - appearing in school plays and releasing self-published albums doesn't cut it, nor would 5,000 subs on YouTube. However, caution is never a bad thing, and a BLPPROD would likely achieve the same thing, so that is also a viable option.

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.)

I googled "Lemmy bazz ward" because there could be a connection between the two names. The first result was The Nice, which mentions both Bazz Ward and Lemmy. Lemmy has his own article, and is clearly notable.

Since whenever this article created could have been before Lemmy was, I did some extra digging. I did some other Google searching for "bazz ward hall of fame" because mentioning the hall of fame, even as a roadie, is an assertation of notability (which means that this article should not be tagged for speedy deletion under A7). There doesn't seem to be many useful independant reliable sources in the first page of Google results, but that doesn't mean it isn't notable. Searched news as well, no luck. Searched books, Rock hardware, a book published in 1996 has both keywords, but I'd need a physical copy to determine whether or not it would be a useful source. I tried different search terms with Google Books, "Lemmy Bazz ward hall of fame". The first result is Algy Ward, which is kind of confusing because it isn't a book but yet another Wikipedia article. I tried "Bazz ward hall of fame rookie", and I also didn't really see anything promising with that.

I'm assuming digital sources exist, I just don't where to look. Not all sources are digital, so there could be physical reliable sources that exist. I could also try asking an editor with access to WP:The Wikipedia Library if there's anything that of interest there.

Taking another look at the article, "Cheers Bazz" might mean that the user who created this article is Bazz (or is impersonating him). This could be an WP:Autobiography.

To be honest, I'm not sure what the best course of action would be after all of this. I'd probably leave the article alone, but include a summary of my efforts on the article's talk page. I'd also leave uw-autobiography on the user's talk page. Clovermoss (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow - you did a lot of researching there. I'm going to give this a tick because, if you're not sure what to do, leaving it alone is always a viable option! You're right that the hall of fame mention is an important point here - it could be interpreted as a credible claim of significance which means that A7 wouldn't be a great shout. A1 isn't a brilliant fit either - the content is obviously seriously deficient, but it does actually have enough context to allow you to identify the subject. So, searching for sources and rewording it so that it's a sourced stub would be an option - but if you can't find any sources, you can't do that either. BLPPROD - possible, but the text is worded in such a way as to suggest that the subject may be dead. Standard PROD would probably work, but the best option in this situation is probably a bold REDIRECT to an existing article - The Nice, which you identified above, would work very well.

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?

@Girth Summit: What stands out to me here is "clearly copy-pasted" as that means that the article's content is a blatant copyright violation. G12 would be the appropriate speedy deletion criteria to apply here. As for "all rights reserved", it's an extra sign that indicates that this is copy-pasted from elsewhere, but not having it doesn't mean it isn't copy-pasted, so I'd still do the same thing. To find out where the content was copy-pasted from, I'd use Earwig's tool. Clovermoss (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Great answer - yes, this is a G12, and you are correct that it doesn't matter whether the page has 'all rights reserved' written on it - we assume that any content is covered by copyright, unless it can be clearly shown not to be covered. If in doubt, assume it's covered. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Scenario 6

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

@Girth Summit: I would look at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for further information and tag the article with Template:Not English. This is important because unless it is quite clearly a copy-pasted article from another wiki, A2 does not apply. The reason the article should be translated is to understand whether or not the article is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. If it is, it can be translated and kept. Clovermoss (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You're right - A2 only applies for direct copy/paste. However, there are some other steps you should consider here - this might be an attack page in another language, or blatant advertising. In this situation, I'd translate the page using Google translate, and see what it was about - if it's obviously problematic, you can apply for G10, G11 or whatever. If it looks legitimate, then sticking a translation tag on it is the right choice. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:24, 30 November 2019 (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.

@Girth Summit: This can be taken as a sign that the author is requesting deletion and meets the speedy criteria for G7, since they are likely the only main contributor to the article (with the context of blanking it quickly after creating it). Clovermoss (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Yep - this would qualify for G7. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:34, 30 November 2019 (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 a different namespace?

@Girth Summit: I'd probably leave it alone, if its a user page. Unless someone's user page content is a copyright violation or clearly advertising/promotional, I don't see myself putting user pages up for deletion. If this was in another namespace, G1 would probably apply. The only reason I would be hesitant to do that is the last few characters - pieisgreat. That could be read as 'pie is great' and while the rest looks like random characters on a keyboard, those are actual words. It still doesn't seem to be meaningful content though, which is why I think G1 is probably applicable in other namespaces. Clovermoss (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes - in user space, nonsense is fine - there are violations that need to be removed from user space, as you suggest, but nonsense isn't one of them. G1 would be valid for this in article space - I can't see an administrator declining to delete just because there are a few actual words in amongst a strong of random characters. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Clovermoss just noticed you'd put some answers here - nice work, I've given feedback above, feel free to finish the rest in your own time. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC) Clovermoss See above - good job on these, the next section is below. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:30, 30 November 2019 (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?

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)?

@Girth Summit: In this case, it's always best to be safe than sorry. When we're talking about something as serious as threatening harm, I think that it should always be taken seriously. A lot of this stuff is time-sensitive as well, and I wouldn't want to make the wrong call on this sort of stuff because it's not my call to make and a mistake could have serious repercussions. I should email emergency@wikimedia.org if I encounter a situation like this. This email should only be used for threats of self-harm, other emergency situations should be dealt with differently. There's Special:EmailUser:Emergency, which I can use since I already have email enabled. Stuff like this shouldn't be posted on a public and highly visible noticeboard. My email should include specific details about the threat and diff. In addition to contacting the Wikimedia foundation, I should also contact admins. I should also request oversight if there is personal information that requires surpression. Clovermoss (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct, and very thorough. The main thing is e-mailing the emergencies team, but you are absolutely right about reaching out to admins and/or oversighters for help as appropriate. Use your best judgement, and if in any doubt, reach out for help. Next section below... GirthSummit _(blether) 18:45, 30 November 2019 (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 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?

@Girth Summit: Because giving them recognition can encourage further distruption. If vandalism becomes immortalized, the person who caused it might be incentivized to distrupt the project even further, or copycats might try to imitate them in order to become immortalized themselves. Clovermoss (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Yep - they are generally looking for attention, and actively seeking conflict - giving them what they want is just fanning the flames. Much better to give them obviously impersonal warning templates, and then block them if they persist - it's pretty boring for us, and pretty boring for them - much better than giving them the personal attention they crave. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

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.)

@Girth Summit: I would say that the main difference is whether or not someone is genuinely asking why. If you revert someone, and they ask you: why? It's incredibly likely that it's a request made in good faith. It's possible that they might be upset, because they might have worked hard on something and genuinely don't understand why it isn't suitable content. Another way to tell are the edits you reverted: if it looked like a test edit, or something made in good faith, asking why you reverted them is almost certainly being asked in good faith. What I just described isn't vandalism, which kind of ties back into what was discussed at the start of the course. If the edits are clearly vandalism, and your talk page becomes filled with "get a life, I'm just having fun, you nobody" or something like that, it's probably a troll trolling you. If I'm ever unsure whether or not a request is being made in good faith, I should WP:AGF. Clovermoss (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC) Another thing that I should probably consider is whether or not I might have made a mistake myself. I'm not perfect, and it's entirely possible I could have made a mistake in my judgement at the time. Taking a look back at the situation and asking myself "is it possible that I might be in the wrong here?" is a good idea. Clovermoss (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

All excellent points - clear that you've given this some thought. The only thing I'd add, which you haven't touched upon but which often comes up in responses to this question, is that politeness versus rudeness isn't a good indicator. Many good-faith editors get very annoyed when they are reverted, and they may turn up at your talk page and be shouty or rude. That's not OK, and you shouldn't feel you have to put up with personal attacks - but at the same time, it doesn't mean that they're vandals. My approach is always to be excessively courteous and polite, no matter how rude they are, and to go back and look at the edit they're querying - was I wrong, might it have been good faith? Also look at their editing history at this point - are they a persistent vandal, looking to troll you, or do they generally make positive contributions and was this just a misunderstanding? At the end of the day, we all make mistakes - I've performed a number of totally inappropriate rollbacks, because I misread things - it's inevitable if you do a lot of patrolling. Obviously we need to minimise it, but when it happens, regardless of how rude the other editor is, just apologise and self-revert. In my experience, a fulsome apology takes the heat out of the situation very quickly, and people calm down and usually apologise for their own behaviour.

OK, so that's about it. The last section, on rollback, doesn't really apply to you since you already have the permission, but just to make everything above board and ensure you understand the rules around rollback, please look at the following. After that, it's just the exam. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Rollback

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.

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

@Girth Summit: If you're only using standard rollback (like I currently am, but not very often), it can only be used in certain situations. It can be used to revert obvious vandalism, or by blocked/banned users. There's some other uses too, but I only really use this tool for obvious and blatant vandalism. Rollback should not be used for good faith edits (which would be a misuse of the tool) and/or edits where an edit summary is needed (because standard rollback is automatic and only leaves a generic edit summary). Rollback (vandal) through Twinkle is not the same thing as rollback, but can be used in similar situations (it is slower, but you are also prompted to leave an edit summary, which can be an advantage in certain situations). Other tools can be used with rollback, like Huggle. I haven't used Huggle, but it's something that might be worth looking into in the future (especially when I'm not editing on my tablet and can actually use it). Clovermoss (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yep - this is correct, it's primarily for reverting unambiguous vandalism. I rarely use it myself actually, since I find Twinkle red rollback generally more convenient, but it's occasionally useful. As well as Huggle, Rollback gives you access to Stiki. If you're interested in using a diff browser to find vandalism, I'd recommend you start out with Stiki before trying Huggle. Huggle is very much front-line, checking edits as they are made - the immediacy of it can exert a kind of time-pressure to make fast decisions, which isn't ideal when you're starting out; Stiki is similar in terms of functionality, but it looks through Cluebot's memory and shows you old diffs that Cluebot thought were problematic, but which nobody has looked at. It's great for finding old vandalism that slipped through the net, and you can take your time with it.

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

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

@Girth Summit: I should self-revert, make a sincere apology directed at the user I accidently reverted, then make a decision on what to do next. If it's an edit that is perfectly fine, there's nothing else I would do other than what I already mentioned. If it's an unconstructive, good faith edit that needs to be reverted, I should self-revert, revert using undo and leave an edit summary. In the latter case, I should still apologize, because using rollback for good faith edits (even accidently) is a mistake, and I should make it clear that it was a mistake and accept responsibility for my action(s). Clovermoss (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Another good answer. The default position should be to self-revert and apologise, but I'd leave it to your judgment as to whether it's strictly necessary in all cases. If someone had perhaps blanked a whole section of an article for no apparent reason, and I accidentally rolled back instead of leaving an edit summary, rather than self-revert I might make a dummy edit immediately afterwards, using that edit summary to explain why I'd rolled back. Something along the lines of 'Dummy edit - previous rollback was due to unexplained section blanking'. But yeah, if in doubt, apologise.

OK, well done - the course is finished. I'll place the final exam below - go through it at your own rate and ping me when you're done and I'll come back and mark it. Good luck! GirthSummit _(blether) 14:05, 8 December 2019 (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?
I would consider this to be a test edit, and leave uw-test1. If this had happened once before, I'd use uw-test2. I would not describe this as vandalism if it happened once and I'd still be hesistant to call it vandalism the second time it happened. However, if it kept happening, after recieving both of these warnings, I would consider it vandalism and give uw-test3.
Y
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?
The page at WP:Signatures is a behavioural guideline (with some sections indicating policy) and the lead states that "Signature use that is intentionally and persistently distruptive may lead to blocks." Since a signature would highlight one person's contibutions over the next, they shouldn't be included in articles. This person was already warned with uw-article sig, which is a single-notice user warning. I'd probably leave a message like: "Please stop adding signatures to articles on Wikipedia, as an article is a shared effort. If you continue to add signatures to articles, your edits might be seen as disruptive." After that, if it happens a third time, I'd probably use {{uw-disruptive2}}. The reason I didn't use uw-distruptive1 is because its fairly vague (and so is distruptive2), but at least my personal message makes it clear that adding signatures to articles is what the warning is about. Distruptive editing is not vandalism, as explained in the lead of the page.
Y
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 revert using Twinkle's AGF (Assume Good faith), and leave {{uw-npov1}} on their talk page. I would leave an additional line to the message (which can do with any user warning through Twinkle), writing that "Although you might think that 'John Smith is the best', Wikipedia articles should be neutral. If you can provide a citation to an independant, reliable source, you could write: According to [person], "John Smith is the best". If they continue to add this content, without any changes (like citing a source, which might stay in the article or start a WP:BRD cycle), I would probably use {{uw-disruptive1}}, then esclalate the warning from there. If it continues to happen past {{uw-disruptive3}}, I would use Twinkle to report to WP:ANV.

A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
- I would revert using Twinkle's AGF, with an edit summary of "Possible test edit". Then, I would leave a message at their talk page with {{uw-test1}}. If they do this again, I would escalate the warning each time by one. After {{uw-test3}}, I would use {{uw-vandalism4}}, and if it happens again after that, I would report to WP:ANV with Twinkle.
Y
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?
- This is a question I spent some time thinking about, and I think that the context of this situation matters. If the sourced information is from an unreliable source, then the information might be wrong. A user with a history of positive contributions would generally be more trustworthy than a user with distruptive contributions, but each edit should stand on its own two feet. The first time I saw this happening, I would undo with an edit summary of "removal of sourced information, see talk page". I would then start a thread on the talk page and invite the user to comment there. If the information can be demonstrated to be wrong or a fringe view through the use of reliable sources, then the information should be removed. If this kept happening and no discussion was occurring, I would consider sending escalating warnings with {{uw-delete1}}, {{uw-delete2}}, etc. However, the main reason I'm hesitant to use these warnings is that it says "without explaining why" and "this is wrong" counts as an explanation.
Y This is a really good, well thought-out answer. The important thing here, as you've pointed out, is to check the assertion and the source before reverting. One could not claim to be reverting unexplained blanking - the edit summary, while brief, explains why the user has removed the content, and so if you decide to reinsert it you are taking responsibility for it being legitimate. Check the content that was removed, check the source is reliable, and check that the source supports the assertions that were in the content. If it's a dodgy source, or the content doesn't actually match what the source says, don't revert - this is especially important in a BLP. I have seen instances where an IP editor, without any knowledge of our policies or behavioural norms, has tried to remove totally inappropriate content, but been reverted by patrollers who just see an IP removing sourced content and assume it's bad faith. One case in particular will always stick in my mind, when an IP was removing material from a BLP about a relative of the subject's being arrested. It was 'sourced' to a dubious tabloid, but even if it had been properly sourced it was blatantly in violation of BLP, and had no place being there; however, the IP was removing it without using edit summaries, and they were being reverted by multiple patrollers, including one or two admins if I remember correctly. The IP got blocked for edit warring, and had it not been for a particularly thoughtful admin who actually bothered to investigate properly, that material would have stayed in the article. All of the patrollers who reverted got a bit of a roasting at ANI over the matter (I confess that I was one of them) - you don't want to be in that position!

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.
- I would use {{uw-blank1}}
Y
A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on **Derek Jeter.
- From what I can tell after reading Wikipedia:Edit filter, trying to put curse words on an article and tripping an edit filter means that their edit was disallowed. Since an editor will see a customisable message in relation to that edit filter, that would probably count as already being warned. Users who trip edit filters are also reported by bot to WP:ANV, so I don't think that I should do anything other than report a false positive if it happened (which is not the case in this situation).
Y Not bad reasoning, but be aware that you can use {{uw-attempt1}} for this sort of thing. You are right that the user will have been warned by the edit filter itself that their edit wasn't appropriate, but giving them a user warning like that is useful because (a) it means they realise that other users have noticed what they are doing (not just a bot), so they know people are watching them, and (b) it serves as an indication to other patrollers/admins that it's worth checking their edit filter logs.
A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
- I would use {{uw-efsummary}}
Y
A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
- I would revert and use {{uw-vandalism2}} on their talk page.
Y
A user blanks a section without a reason on David Newhan.
- I would revert and use {{uw-delete1}} on their talk page.
Y
A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
- I would revert with TW [good faith] and use the edit summary: Possible test edit. I would then add {{uw-test1}} to their talk page.
Y
A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
- I would revert with TW [good faith]: not relevant to the article. I get the impression that this is someone who is trying to edit because "anyone can edit". It's not the most constructive change, but it feels like an edit made in good faith and not vandalism.
Y Obviously if they persisted though it would be disruptive.
A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
- I would revert because this would be a WP:BLP violation without a citation to a reliable source. I would leave {{uw-biog1}} on their talk page.
Y
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
- I would revert and leave {{uw-delete3}} on their talk page. They have no user warnings, so I would not report to WP:ANV unless they blanked the article again after I had warned them.
Y although, having done it five times without warning, a 4im would not be inappropriate.
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
- I would report this user to WP:ANV for continuing to vandalize the article after receiving a level 4 warning.
Y
A user blanks your userpage and replaced it with 'I hate this user' (you have had a number of problems with this user in the past).
- I would revert. Then, I would start a new thread at WP:ANI including relevant diffs about my history with this user and include this diff among them. I would notify the user on their talk page about the ANI discussion with {{ANI-notice}} (I would substitute this template). I would also likely take a short break if I needed it and clear my head, so I don't say something hurtful back while I'm angry, because if I have a history with this user, I'm more likely to be upset and hurt by this comment.
Y I would expect an intrusive personal attack like to result in an immediate indefinite block at ANI.
A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
- This seems like a test edit, since File:Example.jpg looks like something that might happen if you're trying to understand how wikitext and linking files works. I would revert with TW [good faith] and with the edit summary: Possible test edit. Then, I'd leave {{uw-test1}} on their talk page. I'd also likely to leave a personal message and ask if they need help with trying to learn how to upload an image.
Y

Part 3

What CSD tag you would put on the following articles? (The content below represents the entire content of the article).

Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
- I would tag this with {{Db-promo}} because this is promotional and not encyclopedic and therefore meets G11 CSD criteria
Y
Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
- I would do some quick checks for sources to make sure Josh Marcus isn't notable per WP:GNG, but the article itself doesn't offer claims of signfigiance, so this would meet A7 CSD criteria. I would tag this {{db-person}}.
Y Since the article contains no credible claim to importance or significance (being the coolest kid in London is hardly credible), you wouldn't be obliged to check for notability - this is an A7 fail on its own. It's never a bad idea to check before nominating though!
Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
- Same as above with Josh Marcus, except Joe is more vague and I can't do much of a before search. There aren't any claims to signfigiance, so this would meet A7 CSD criteria. I would tag this with {{db-person}}.
Y Technically, this is more of a db-event than a db-person - it's describing something Joe did, rather than Joe himself - but clearly there is no claim of significance. However, you could also apply A1 here - there simply isn't enough context to identify the subject (who is Joe?).
A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
- Smadoodles don't exist, so this would meet G3 CSD criteria. I would tag this with {{db-hoax}}.
Y
Fuck Wiki!
- I would tag this with {{Db-g3}} because this is blatant vandalism.
Y

Part 4

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

TheMainStreetBand
- This username could potentially be a username policy violation as implying shared use. If there are promotional edits for TheMainStreetBand, then it would violate the username policy as a promotional username.
Y
Fartypants
- I think the username seems a bit immature, but I don't think it counts as a blatant username policy violation, so I wouldn't report it.
Y I agree - this isn't offensive enough to warrant a UAA report. I would probably snoop around their contribs a bit, since an account with a name like that would have a high likelihood of being used for vandalism, but if that was the case the report should go to AIV rather than UAA.
Brian's Bot
- Brian's Bot would be a violation of WP:Username policy because it is a misleading username that is implying that the account in question is a bot. True bots must be approved through WP:BAG. I would report this username to WP:UAA.
Y
sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
- I think that this could be a confusing username as it a very long username with various letters that don't have any clear meaning and commas. I would place {{uw-username}} on their talk page and explain why their username could be considered confusing.
Y Agree here - this is confusing, but probably not immediately block-worthy. Check the contribs, if they are editing in good faith then initiate a discussion as you suggest (and if they're not editing in good faith, send to AIV).
WikiAdmin
- This username would be a violation of username policy as misleading because it is implying that the account is an administrator (sysop). I would report this username to WP:UAA.
Y
12:12, 23 June 2012
- This is a confusing/misleading username because it looks like a signature. I would place {{uw-username}} on their talk page and explain why their username could be considered to be confusing.
Y
PMiller
- I'm not seeing anything that would make this an obvious username violation. If the account has edited and made good faith contribution(s), I'd probably welcome them.
Y Yep, just a real name - nothing wrong here.
OfficialJustinBieber
- While real names are allowed, a username that says OfficialJustinBieber implies that this account is Justin Bieber. While it isn't impossible that someone who is notable on Wikipedia would want to edit it, this user probably isn't Justin Bieber; it's a relatively uncommon name that is not a common name like John Green. I'd report this to WP:UAA, where the account would likely be blocked as a precautionary measure. If the person who made this account truly is Justin Beiber, he could email info-en@wikimedia.org.
Y Correct - this would probably be impersonation, they would need to verify their identity to edit under that username.

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)?
- WP:3RR exempts obvious vandalism. However, if it is not obvious vandalism, I should attempt to engage with the user and always assume good faith. I could start the WP:BRD cycle. I should not demonstrate WP:OWN behaviour or misuse WP:Rollback.
Y Yep - 3RRNO gets you off the hook for obvious vandalism or BLP violations, but not for other stuff so if in doubt, stop reverting and either let someone else take over the reverting, or discuss it with them. As an aside, there have been times when I have continued reverting past 3RR for BLP concerns - whenever I've done this, as well as telling the other editor why their edits are inappropriate, I've also dropped a quick note at WP:BLPN explaining what I'm doing and why, to get more eyes on the situation.
Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
- Vandalism-only accounts should be reported to WP:ANV.
Y
Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
- Complex abuse that needs to be explained with mutiple diffs should be reported to WP:ANI.
Y
Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
- Blatant username violations should be reported to WP:UAA.
Y
Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
- This kind of depends on the situation. According to WP:NPA#Responding to personal attacks, an isolated incident could be ignored, but if the PA is highly offensive or distruptive, it should not be ignored. Situations requiring direct and immediate intervention can be reported to WP:ANI.
Y
Where and how should an edit war be reported?
- Edit warring should be reported to WP:ANEW.
Y
Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
- Ambiguous violations of WP:BLP can be reported to the WP:BLP Noticeboard.
Y

Clovermoss - great work - some very thoughtful answers, and at 99% I call that one hell of a pass! GirthSummit _(blether) 12:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Completion

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 99%. 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.