User:Puddleglum2.0/CVUA/The creeper2007

Hello @The creeper2007:, and welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your academy page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible in your answers, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me at my talk page.

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

How to use this page

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

The CVUA curriculum

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

Communication

Counter-vandalism work can result in very large watchlists, which can make it more difficult to monitor pages using that alone. For this reason, I will ping you whenever I update this page with some feedback or a new task; I would also ask you to ping me when you have completed a task, so that I get a notification telling me that it's ready for review. See WP:PING for details on how to do this if you aren't sure. -- puddleglum^2.0 19:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The start

Twinkle

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

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

@Puddleglum2.0:I am already using twinkle to revert vandalism, it's installed already. The creeper2007^Talk! 22:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC) edited on 01:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@The creeper2007: awesome - next section below. -- puddleglum^2.0 16:10, 4 June 2020 (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.

Good faith edits is made by a editor who tried to improve wikipedia, but it wasn't a successful attempt. A vandalism edit is a edit where they tried to disrupt wikipedia intensionally. The creeper2007^Talk! 18:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Y nice - the difference to remember between GF and vandalism is the intent behind the edit - if its intended to harm Wikipedia, its vandalism, otherwise, always AGF.

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

Good Faith

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immune_system&diff=prev&oldid=959528105&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burton_Joyce&diff=prev&oldid=959858605

this one I would have reverted as vandalism - it includes a personal attack, which is always a sign of vandalism, but if you were unsure, its good to AGF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clinton,_Mississippi&diff=prev&oldid=959226989&diffmode=source

These ones above are potentially vandalism, but we assume good faith The creeper2007^Talk! 18:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=6.57_Crew&diff=prev&oldid=960027228&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Hasselhoff&diff=prev&oldid=959224909&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silverwing_(novel)&diff=prev&oldid=959227330&diffmode=source

The above are obvious vandalism. The creeper2007^Talk! 18:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

all correct!

Also, is there a better way to post diffs?The creeper2007^Talk! 18:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You should be able to pipe diffs as well as links - look at the source of this diff to see how diff

A note about Twinkle

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

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

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

Got that, thank you! The creeper2007^Talk! 18:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Puddleglum2.0: Sorry I forgot to ping The creeper2007^Talk! 17:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@The creeper2007: Nice, see my notes above and then continue below! -- puddleglum^2.0 23:49, 5 June 2020 (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?

We warn users to help and guide good faith editors and to deter bad-faith editors.

Y I would also say it's a sort of paper trail for admins looking at contribs after an AIV report - it gives a record of vandalism.

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

A 4im should only be given when there are excessive or continuous disruption.

Y continuous disruption that has gone unwarned.

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!)

Always subst a warning template.

how?

@Puddleglum2.0:by adding subst: inside the template like {{Subst:uw-vandalism1}} Also, could you please explain me what to do in the table below(maybe an example?) and how to complete the new question? The creeper2007^Talk! 06:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC) edited on 06:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@The creeper2007: correct. About the table, all you have to do is replace the text that says "diff" with a diff of your revert, then replace the "comment" text with your explanation of why you reverted. Does that make sense? All the best, -- puddleglum^2.0 19:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yup, getting started! The creeper2007^Talk! 22:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Bring them to WP:AIV.

Y

@Puddleglum2.0: Done! The creeper2007^Talk! 00:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC) @Puddleglum2.0: The creeper2007^Talk! 18:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@The creeper2007: See question above and table below, nice job! -- puddleglum^2.0 20:35, 8 June 2020 (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	[[1]]	vandalism, warned with vandalism level 1
2	[[2]]	vandalism with fake edit summary, user accumulated multiple warnings, warned with level 3 vandalism, skipped a level
3	[[3]]	vandalism, user accummilated one level 1 warning, warning with level 2 vandalism notice
4	[[4]]	AGF with handwritten note for removal of content[[5]]
5	[[6]]	vandal who got blocked before I could even leave a warning
6	[[7]]	Got this one from pending changes backlog(yes, I am a pending changes reviewer), not notable, left a {{subst:Uw-badlistentry}} 'Update' I tooked a look at the edit, it got reverted by a ip editor, and it triggered a short edit war. I would have RPPed for higher but I didn't because that I was involved	Well, you were only tangentially involved, so I still would have made the RfPP report, but looks like it worked out in the end.
7	[[8]]	another one from rc backlog, unconstructive, potentially vandalism, agf left lv 2 disruptive editing on page, user already have one from cluebotng
8	[[9]]	practically admitting that they are a sock. opened investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/93.41.117.100 Not sure if I done it right though. also left a lv1 vandal warning on user page. Update:The user is banned	Nice - with ips that blatantly admit their sock-iness, I typically just report at AIV with correct diffs as it's faster, but obviously that worked to.
9	[[10]]	Vandalism, report to AIV due to the amount of warnings from this month.
10	[[11]]	AGF for NPOV

By the way, I'm using[[12]] rc patrol filter.

@Puddleglum2.0: Done! The creeper2007^Talk! 20:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Puddleglum2.0: Done! The creeper2007^Talk! 19:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The creeper 2007 sorry, didn't get that first ping. Nice, all the answers are correct, I've just put a couple notes in some. Next section below! -- puddleglum^2.0 20:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

fix my ping, sorry {{The creeper2007}} -- puddleglum^2.0 20:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I need to use the preview button - @The creeper2007: 😅 -- puddleglum^2.0 20:02, 14 June 2020 (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?

A page should be semi-protected if there are significant amount of vandalism or edit warring from new or unregistered users. It is also used on some highly visible templates and modules.

Y although usually template protection is used for the latter.

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

Infrequently edited articles with a high number of vandalism from new or unregistered users.

Y

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Pages with persistent amount of vandalism from extended confirmed users. It is also used on critical templates and modules

Y mainly also for edit-warring.

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

A name should be creation protected if there are once deleted but frequently recreated.

Y it should be deleted more than once.

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

Talk pages are only protected in the case of severe vandalism.

Y

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).

@Puddleglum2.0: Done!The creeper2007^Talk! 17:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC) @Puddleglum2.0:The creeper2007^Talk! 21:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC) @Puddleglum2.0:The creeper2007^Talk! 22:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@The creepe2007: sorry, I get a lot of pings each day, so I may miss yours. If I haven't responded in a day or two, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 00:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

A page should be speedy deleted if it meets one or more of the CSDs.

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.

G10

Scenario 2

A user with the username "GoodTimesLLC" creates a user page with the following text:

'''Good Times LLC''' is an organization dedicated to helping your children get the highest quality education at an affordable price. Visit our website at goodtimes.info and contact us at 123-456-7890.

G11

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.

A7, School plays, SoundCloud and 5000 subs isn't my idea of being notable for wikipedia

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 up Bazz Ward Lemmy and found a wikipedia page The Nice and so, I would redirect it to The Nice and tag it with Template:R with poss. (it's a hard one)

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?

G12 and my answer would be the same even without the copyright notice. If it is a big issue, I would contact an oversight

Scenario 6

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language. I would check if it exists on another project(using google translate if necessary) and if it exists, then I would tag it with a A2 if not, I would tag it with a Not English template. But if it is a copyright infringement, I would G12 it.

Scenario 7

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

G7

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?

G1 and I would do the same even if it is on a different namespace

@Puddleglum2.0: Done! The creeper2007^Talk! 23:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Ping fixed at 05:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)@Puddleglum2.0:

Nice, all correct @The creeper2007:! Note about the pings: you need to have a new ping and new signature on a different line to fix them or else they won't send. Just realized I forgot one scenario; it won't make a huge difference but info like completeness. Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 16:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Bonus Scenario!

Tim Spinks is the fastest runner in Park Grove School, and won the house cup three years running.

This one is much harder. Although they made a claim of significance, I would still go with A7 because the requirements require a Creditable claim of significance, so, I looked further and at page wp:ccos, it states a 2 part test. I believe that it would fail the part B of the 2 part test so, I would nominate it A7, or I could start a XFD at AFD The creeper2007^Talk! 16:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Done! @Puddleglum2.0:The creeper2007^Talk! 16:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Puddleglum2.0: The creeper2007^Talk! 00:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@The creeper2007: Not quite sure what you mean by that red link there, but I'll AGF it's a policy that exists and is applicable, and, that criteria being applicable (G1 might work better though,) here's the next section! Sorry for the wait. -- puddleglum^2.0 00:23, 25 June 2020 (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?

I should contact a admin for revdel. I could do it through IRL. The creeper2007^Talk! 00:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

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

On the subject of oversight, I actually just had to request one today. One could request oversight on IRL with !oversight and the email.

Also, I just want to know if personal attacks is a blockable offence? I just recieved some today multiple times after reverting their vandalism edits. Done! @Puddleglum2.0: The creeper2007^Talk! 00:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @The creeper2007:, the answers above are correct, assuming you mean IRC. :) Personal Attacks can be blockable, it depends on the severity of them and who they're coming from. If they're from a newer editor who is engaging in clear vandalism and who is clearly just out to get you, that's definitely blockable (although it probably won't be an indeff, maybe just a cool-down block of sorts.) However, if it's coming from a more established user, it would probably warrant a trip to WP:ANI, as it could be for multiple reasons, some of which might require blocking, others desyssoping if applicable, others require no action. I can't find where you were rattacked, but if you provided some diffs I could check it out and take appropiate action. Setting up the next section now! All the best, -- puddleglum^2.0 00:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Where should I report to get a new user blocked?The creeper2007^Talk! 00:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Puddleglum2.0: Hello? The creeper2007^Talk! 00:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@The creeper2007: Aplogies, I've been really busy, and Wikipedia has taken a back-burner. I hope you understand. :) So, you should know where to report users, it was a part of the course a couple sections back correctly. Have you been getting the answers from other students pages? Please answer truthfully - there are ways I can find out but it would take me time, which I don't have a lot of now. :) The anaswer (that you should know) is at WP:AIV, or at WP:ANI if it's a complex case. The next section is below, but please also answer the above question. Thanks! All the best -- puddleglum^2.0 02:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Puddleglum2.0:Done! And no I'm not getting answers from elsewhere. Also, I reported the user to ANI as a vandal only account because the only edits are personal attacks and vandalism. Thank you! The creeper2007^Talk! 19:23, 2 July 2020 (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 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

See their edits are saying things like "I'm bill gates". If they are, then it is misleading.

Y

LMedicalCentre

Promoname

Y

G1rth Summ1t

Misleading username

Y

JoeAtBurgerKing

Looks alright(edited)

Y

JoeTheSysop

misleading username

Y

Th3 cr33p3r2007

Misleading and I am registering it as a Doppelgänger account right now (Apparently the filter caught it!)

Y

D0naldTrump

Misleading username

Y

WikipediaAndEditorsIsDUmb

Offensive

Y

Oshwaah

Misleading

Y

😜

Is registering with a emoji even possible?

Yes.

I think I would report, but not sure. nvm. I would leave a Uw-username notice for the username and talk to the user about it.

Puddleglum20

Misleading

Y

SausageIsGr8!!!

Looks alright

Y

Done!The creeper2007^Talk! 19:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

{Re|Puddleglum2.0} Done! The creeper2007^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 00:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@The creeper2007: graded - registering with an emoji is possible to my knowledge - would you mind answering it now? regardless, I've added the next section, good luck! Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 02:07, 9 July 2020 (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?

Email the team at the email on the page or use the email user feature

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)?

One should treat it like that it is not empty and still send them the email

@Puddleglum2.0: Done! The creeper2007^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 05:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Puddleglum2.0: Done! Done! The creeper2007^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 04:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@The creeper2007: sorry, next section below. all of them are correct, we're almost done! -- puddleglum^2.0 04:50, 13 July 2020 (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?

We deny recognition to trolls and vandal because recognition and reactions are a motivation for vandals and trolls.

Y exactly - don't feed the trolls, as the saying goes.

How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you? (Note - this is not a trick question, but it's not a straightforward one. Have a think about it, make your suggestions, and then we'll have a discussion. There isn't necessarily a clear right answer, but I'd be interested to know the factors you'd consider.)

I would consider wether if they are using cuss words or an extremely negative tone towards me. If it is like "u sux sux to suc"(a troll/vandal posted this on my talk) then it is for sure a troll trying to harass me. Otherwise, if it is polite, the it is probably a editor asking me about why I reverted their edit(revised on 17:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

Well, you'd think that politeness versus rudeness would be a good way of judging, but it actually isn't al that very reliable. Some good faith editors get extremely cross when they're reverted, and may come across as very rude on your talk page; that doesn't mean that they're vandals, it just means they're grumpy. The thing to do is go back and have another look at the edit - is it possible that you made a mistake? Then look at the user's contribs - are they a vandal come to jerk your chain, or does it look like a good editor who maybe slipped up? There's no right or wrong here, use your best judgement, but don't rely on politeness as a guide. If you are convinced they are a vandal, revert, warn and ignore; if you think they're a good-faith editor, then regardless of how rude they have been, try to engage with them courteously. 9 times out of 10 they'll calm down and apologise for any rudeness - if they continue to harass you though, you can always reach out for help to me (or any admin), or at ANI if necessary. Hope this makes sense!

@Puddleglum2.0: Done! The creeper2007^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 17:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@The creeper2007: great, the final exam is below! Take as much time as you want, and when you're done, it would be great if you could drop a note on my talk page, as that will be more highly visible for me. Good luck! Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 23:39, 14 July 2020 (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).

1. A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article, having never edited before. Would you treat it differently if they had done the same thing once before?

good faith because it's probably a just a test edit. If they have done the same thing before, then I would consider it would be vandalism.

{tick}}

1. A user adds their signature to an article after once being given a {{Uw-articlesig}} warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?

I would revert and warn. if they keep doing it after a lv4 warning, I would report them to AIV.

Y

1. 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 take it as vandalism. if they are doing it for the first time, then I would tell them that wikipedia is not the place for self promotion. afterwards, I would template them with vandalism warnings and at the end, I would report to air

Y AIV.

1. A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?

looks like a good-faith test. I would leave a test warning.

Y correct as far as the answer goes, but the answer doesn't quite finish the question. I'd keep assuming good faith for the second and third time (assuming they've been warned), but after that I'd treat it as vandalism.

1. 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?

If the user have a history of positive contributions then I would remind them that it is sourced. if they have a history of disruptive contributions, I would template them with a removal of content warning.

Y

Part 2

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

1. A user blanks Cheesecake.

uw-blank

Y

1. A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.

uw-attempt

Y

1. A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.

uw-efsummary

Y

1. A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.

uw-vandalism

Y

1. A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.

uw-delete

Y

1. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

uw-vandalism

Y

1. A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.

uw-vandalism

Y

1. A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.

uw-biog

Y

1. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.

uw-generic4 N I'd use a 4im warning.

@Puddleglum2.0:The reason that I would use a generic4 warning is because that uw-blank does not have a 4im level.The creeper2007^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 22:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

1. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.

Report them to AIV.

Y

1. 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).

uw-npa

Y If you've had a number of problemds in the past, I'd report to ANI.

1. A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.

uw-image

Y given the nature of the image, I might use a test warning.

Part 3

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

1. Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!

g11

1. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

A7

1. Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !

g2

1. A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.

g3

1. Fuck Wiki!

g10

YYY all correct! -- puddleglum^2.0 20:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Part 4

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

1. TheMainStreetBand

Appearantly The main street band is a real thing, so it would be a promo name

1. Fartypants

Depends, if the user is editing constructively, then it would be alright, else, i would report for offensive username

1. Brian's Bot

If the user is a bot, then it would be alright, else, it would be misleading

1. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

disruptive username

1. WikiAdmin

misleading username

1. 12:12, 23 June 2012

misleading

1. PMiller

looks alright

1. OfficialJustinBieber

misleading

YYY all correct! -- puddleglum^2.0 20:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Part 5

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

1. Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?

Yes, you could get into a edit war while reverting vandalism.

Y please review WP:3RR, as it's very important.

1. Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?

One should report vandalism-only accounts to AIV

Y

1. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

Not exactly sure, but i think ANI is the place.

Y

1. Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?

UAA

Y

1. Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?

ANI

Y

1. Where and how should an edit war be reported?

AN3

Y

1. Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?

BLPN

Y

@The creeper2007: Nice job! I've left comments at some of the answers, but overall you did great! Please review my notes - the more important ones I've highlighted in red, not becuase you did bad but because it's an obvious colour. The last section is below! Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 20:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@The creeper2007: fix ping, sorry. -- puddleglum^2.0 20:46, 15 July 2020 (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.

Read WP:ROLLBACK.

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

Rollback may be used only in cases of obvious vandalism.

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

You should undo the rollback or rollback the rollback.

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

No you should not use rollback if you want to leave a edit summary

@Puddleglum2.0: Done! Also, about the request for rollback that i made, I asked about it on the perms page and the sysop said that they would ask another admin to take a look.The creeper2007^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 21:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Puddleglum2.0:Thank you very much for helping me complete the course, Stay safe. The creeper2007^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 22:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)