User:DatGuy/Woodstop45

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

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.
 * How to use this page

Questions
Write any questions here! I also suggest you add this page to your watchlist. Dat GuyTalkContribs 08:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle
Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE. ✔️ Woodstop45 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.

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. It is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labelling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.


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

A good faith edit is an edit that is made with helpful intentions. It can take the form of using original research, and personal attacks to another user. New users may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's guidelines, which may cause them to make some mistakes. Good faith should be assumed because most users try to edit positively to Wikipedia. Good faith edits are not vandalism and shouldn't be challenged as such.

A vandalism edit is when a user tries to make unconstructive edits, which will damage or harm Wikipedia. Some forms of vandalism include blanking pages, sockpuppetry, and inserting gibberish into pages.

Good faith edits are made with helpful intentions, while vandalism edits are made with harmful intentions.

Good thorough explanation, nice summary. Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


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


 * 1) Good faith edit on

Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Good faith edit on

, waiting for one more good faith example. Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Good faith edit on


 * Vandalism


 * 1) Vandalism on - Blanking content

Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Vandalism on - Replacing content with personal attack

that is not, as far as I can see, a personal attack. Please read this section. Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Vandalism on - Replacing content with warning template

Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:10, 6 August 2016 (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 let them know that they've broken a policy or guideline, and that their changes were undone. Woodstop45 (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

A 4im warning would be appropriate when the user edits in very bad faith, and is used in the case of continuous disruption from a user. Woodstop45 (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, this is a ❌. Please read WP:UWLEVEL. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?

You should always substitute the warning template so that if the template itself is changed, the content on the user talk page which you have warned will remain the same. You can substitute a template by putting subst: in front of the content within the brackets, for example:{{subst:uw-test}}. Woodstop45 (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


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

Report them to WP:AIV for an administrator to review their changes and see if they need to be blocked. Woodstop45 (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Please give examples (using ) of three different warnings (not different levels of the same warning and excluding the test edit warning levels referred to below), that you might need to use while recent changes patrolling and explain what they are used for.

1.   is the level 1 warning for vandalism. It tells the user that their edits were unconstructive and directs them to the sandbox.

2.   is the level 3 warning for blanking or removing content from pages. It tells the user that if they continue to blank, they may be blocked from editing.

3.  is the level 2 warning for disruptive editing. It tells the user that their edits were disruptive and tells them about content dispute, directs them to the Administrator noticeboard if they need assistance in resolving a dispute, and tells them to discuss their dispute with the editor it is involved in on that user's talk page to seek consensus with them.


 * Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Make sure you keep in mind that some edits that seem like vandalism can be test edits. This happens when a new user is experimenting and makes accidental unconstructive edits. Generally, these should be treated with good faith, especially if it is their first time, and warned gently. The following templates are used for test edits:, and.

I just wanted to make sure you know about Special:RecentChanges, if you use the diff link in a different window or tab you can check a number of revisions much more easily. If you enable Hovercards in the Hover section of your preferences, you can view the diff by just hovering over it. Alternately, you can press control-F or command-F and search for "tag:". some edits get tagged for possible vandalism or section blanking.


 * Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Please include at least two test edits and at least two appropriate reports to AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below

Shared IP tagging
There are a number of IP user talk page templates which show helpful information to IP users and those wishing to warn or block them. There is a list of these templates


 * Shared IP - For general shared IP addresses.
 * ISP - A modified version specifically for use with ISP organizations.
 * Shared IP edu - A modified version specifically for use with educational institutions.
 * Shared IP gov - A modified version specifically for use with government agencies.
 * Shared IP corp - A modified version specifically for use with businesses.
 * Shared IP address (public) - A modified version specifically for use with public terminals such as in libraries, etc.
 * Mobile IP - A modified version specifically for use with a mobile device's IP.
 * Dynamic IP - A modified version specifically for use with dynamic IPs.
 * Static IP - A modified version specifically for use with static IPs which may be used by more than one person.

Each of these templates take two parameters, one is the organisation to which the IP address is registered (which can be found out using the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page. The other is for the host name (which is optional) and can also be found out from the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page.

Also, given that different people use the IP address, older messages are sometimes refused so as to not confuse the current user of the IP. Generally any messages for the last one-two months are removed, collapsed, or archived. The templates available for this include:
 * OW for when the messages are deleted from the talk page.
 * Old IP warnings top and Old IP warnings bottom for collapsing the user warnings and leaving them on the talk page.
 * Warning archive notice for when the messages are archived, and that archiving follows the usually naming sequence (that is, /Archive 1).

NOTE: All of the templates in this section are not substituted (so don't use "subst:").

Tools
Recent changes patrol includes a list of tools and resources for those who want to fight vandalism with a more systematic and efficient approach.

What you have been doing so far is named the old school approach. As well as manually going through Special:RecentChanges, it includes undos, "last clean version" restores, and manually warning users.

There are a large number of tool which assist users in the fight against vandalism. They range from tools which help filter and detect vandalism to tools which will revert, warn and report users.

Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool
Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool monitors the RSS feed and flags edits with common vandalism terms. It's a very simple tool, but which is useful for not having to go check each and every diff on Recent Changes.

Twinkle
The first tool I want to mention is Twinkle, it's a very useful and I strongly suggest you enable it (in the Gadgets section of your preferences). It provides three types of rollback functions (vandalism, normal and AGF) as well as an easy previous version restore function (for when there are a number of different editors vandalising in a row). Other functions include a full library of speedy deletion functions, and user warnings. It also has a function to propose and nominate pages for deletion, to request page protection to report users to WP:AIV & WP:UAA (which we'll get to later).

Rollback
See rollback, this user right introduces an easy rollback button (which with one click reverts an editor's contributions. I'll let you know when I think you're ready to apply for the rollback user right.

STiki
STiki consists of (1) a component that listens to the RecentChanges feed and scores edits on their possibility of being uncontructive; and (2) An application which scans through the most recent revisions on pages and scores the possibility of them being uncontructive.

Huggle
Huggle is a Windows program which parses (orders them on the likelihood of being unconstructive edits and on the editor's recent history) from users not on its whitelist. It allows you to revert vandalism, warn and reports users in one click.

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 vandals because giving them recognition leads to them developing a sense of infamy. Denying recognition to them decreases their motivation to vandalise pages. Woodstop45 (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


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

A good faith user asking about a revert should ask on the user's talk page in a civil way, while a troll may blank the page or add abusive or disruptive comments on the user's talk page. Woodstop45 (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Mostly, yep Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:46, 3 September 2016 (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. If you have Twinkle installed, 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 when an article receives a large number of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users. This protection prevents disruption and sock-puppetry, especially when it occurs on BLPs. Woodstop45 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What would be your reason if request protection after adding unsourced content to BLP articles?


 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?

A page should be pending changes level 1 protected when vandalism becomes more persistent or the BLP or copyright policy is violated. Pending changes protection can be an alternate to semi-protection to allow unregistered and new users to edit pages, but keeping them hidden until accepted by a reviewer. Woodstop45 (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

A page should be fully-protected if an article is receiving continuous autoconfirmed vandalism edits, especially sock-puppet users. An article can also be fully-protected in the case of edit wars, where full-protection forces the users involved to seek resolution on the article's talk page. Woodstop45 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


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

A should be creation-protected when a bad article has been deleted, but is repeatedly recreated. Woodstop45 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


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

Talk pages are not usually protected, but can be in the case of severe vandalism or harassment. Woodstop45 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


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

Woodstop45 (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , very good that you denied the vandals attention. Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.


 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?

A page should be speedily deleted when it reaches one of the CSD criteria. That includes no indication of notability, vandalism, an attack page, or deletion by the author. Anyone can place a speedy deletion tag on an article, but it is reviewed by an administrator. Only someone who is not the creator of the page may remove a speedy deletion tag, otherwise they have to press the contest deletion button.
 * Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons - they can be for any of the criteria) and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below.

You can also look at my CSD log, which I recently added here Woodstop45 (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) G11 and A7  Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) A1  The article was deleted under A7. If it was also eligible for G1 (as I am not an administrator I cannot see what it looked like), you should've tagged both. Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:54, 3 September 2016 (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. There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed: Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particluar attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.
 * Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, usernames that impersonate other people, or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
 * 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.
 * Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).


 * DJohnson

This username doesn't go against any of the criteria as it is the person's name. Woodstop45 (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dat GuyTalkContribs 07:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * LMedicalCentre

This username is a promotional username because it is the name of a company. I would check if the user made any promotional edits related to that company, if they are, I would report to UAA noticeboard. Woodstop45 (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Fuqudik

This is an offensive username which contains profanities. I would report to UAA and put a  tag. Woodstop45 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ColesStaff

This is a promotional username as it seems to mean that the user is a member of staff of "Coles" organization. I would see if they made any promotional edits related to that company, if they had, then I would report to UAA. Woodstop45 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)



This is a misleading username as it copies the signature wiki markup. I would report to UAA and tag with. Woodstop45 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 172.295.64.27

This is a misleading username as it is named like an IP. I would report to UAA and tag with. Woodstop45 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Bieberisgay

This is a disruptive username as it is a personal attack. I would report to UAA. Woodstop45 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What if he claims to be the real Bieber? Dat GuyTalkContribs 07:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * per the real name policy, if he claims to be the real Bieber he has to be blocked to prevent impersonating that person until he can provide proof to info-en@wikimedia.org. Woodstop45  &bull;  Talk   (Contribs) 16:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Please first warn the user using Twinkle before reporting. Dat GuyTalkContribs 07:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Progress test
Congratulations, now have mastered the "basics" so we can move on. Please complete the following progress test, and I'll tell you what's next.

The following 2 scenarios each have 5 questions that are based on WP: VANDAL, WP:3RR, WP: REVERT, WP: BLOCK, WP: GAIV, WP: WARN, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, and WP:UN. Good Luck!

Scenario 1
You encounter an IP vandalising Justin Bieber by adding in statements that he is gay.
 * Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?


 * Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?


 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?


 * The user has now added offensive words to the article 3 times. You have reverted three times already, can you be blocked for violating the three revert rule in this case?


 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?


 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?

Scenario 2
You see a new account called "Hi999" that has added random letters to one article.
 * Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?


 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?


 * Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?


 * The user now has a level 3 warning on their talk page. They make a vandal edit, would it be appropriate to report this user to AIV? Why or why not?


 * If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?


 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?


 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?

Scenario 3
You see a new account called "LaptopsInc" which has created a new page called "Laptops Inc" (which only contains the words "Laptops Inc" and a few lines of text copied from the company's website). The user also added "www.laptopsinc.com" on the Laptop article. You research Laptops Inc on Google and find that is a small company.
 * Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option would you use?


 * If you do revert which warning template would you use?


 * Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?


 * Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?


 * Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?

Results
Your Score:

Rollback
Congratulations now for the next step. The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced vandalism fighters to revert vandalism with the click of one button. Please read WP:Rollback.


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

Tools
There a number of tools which assist users with reverting vandalism. I primarily use two of them WP:HUGGLE & WP:STIKI.


 * Would you like to learn to use either of these tools?

Monitoring period
Congratulations! You have completed the first section of the anti-vandalism course, well done. Now that we've been through everything that you need to know as a vandal patroller, you will be given a 5 day monitoring period. During this time, you are free to revert vandalism (and edit Wikipedia) as you normally do; I will monitor your progress in anti-vandalism. If there are any issues, I will raise them with you and if you have any problems, you are free to ask me. After five days, if I am satisfied with your progress, you will take the final test; passing this will mean you graduate from the CVUA. Good luck!

If you have any problems or trouble along the way please leave a message in this section on my talk page. If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look.

Final Exam
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.

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (25%)

 * 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. What would you do if it was their first warning? What about after that.
 * 2) A user adds their signature to an article after one being given a Uw-articlesig warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?
 * 3) 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?
 * 4) A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
 * 5) A user removes sources 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?
 * 1) A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
 * 2) A user removes sources 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?
 * 1) A user removes sources 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?
 * 1) A user removes sources 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?

Part 2 (15%)

 * 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.
 * 2) A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
 * 3) A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
 * 4) A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
 * 5) A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
 * 6) A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
 * 7) A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
 * 8) A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
 * 9) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
 * 10) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
 * 11) 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).
 * 12) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * 1) A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
 * 2) A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
 * 3) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
 * 4) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
 * 5) 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).
 * 6) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
 * 2) 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).
 * 3) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.

Part 3 (10%)

 * What CSD tag you would put on the following articles (The content below is the article's content).
 * 1) Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
 * 2) Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
 * 3) Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
 * 4) A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
 * 5) Fuck Wiki!
 * 1) A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
 * 2) Fuck Wiki!
 * 1) Fuck Wiki!
 * 1) Fuck Wiki!

What would you do in the following circumstance:
 * A user blanks a page they very recently created.


 * After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.

Part 4 (10%)

 * 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
 * 2) Poopbubbles
 * 3) Brian's Bot
 * 4) sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
 * 5) Bobsysop
 * 12:12, 23 June 2012
 * 1) PMiller
 * 2) OfficialJustinBieber

Part 5 (10%)

 * 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)?
 * 2) Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
 * 3) Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
 * 4) Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
 * 5) Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
 * 6) Where and how should an edit war be reported?
 * 7) Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?

Part 6 - Theory in practice (30%)

 * 1. Find and revert three instances of vandalism (by different editors on different pages), and appropriately warn the editor. Please give the diffs the warning below.


 * 2. Find and revert two good faith edits, and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.


 * 3. Correctly report two users (either AIV or ANI). Give the diffs of your report below.


 * 4. Correctly request the protection of two articles; post the diffs of your requests below.


 * 5. Correctly nominate one articles for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nominations below.


 * 6. Correctly report one username as a breache of policy.