User:Girth Summit/CVUA/ZI Jony

Hello ZI Jony, 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 Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

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.
 * How to use this page

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.
 * The CVUA curriculum

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. Girth Summit  (blether) 15:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Communication

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.
 * Hi, I've enabled Twinkle long time. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 18:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, cool - I should have checked your contribution history and your userpage, it's pretty obvious that you're used to Twinkle already! That's good - this course is based around Twinkle primarily. Some editors like to use other programs like Huggle or Stiki to do work against vandals - I have used Huggle a bit, and I use Stiki quite a lot, but Twinkle is still the one I use most by a long way. They serve different purposes, and are each better at finding different kinds of problematic edits, so it's good to have people using all of them. Once we've gone through the basics, let me know if you want to talk about other tools and we can do that, but Twinkle is the basic tool you will use to complete and pass this course. On to the first task... Girth Summit  (blether)  18:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a ping to make sure you saw the last update. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:36, 15 July 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.
 * I would like to use Huggle and Stiki to work against vandals, but as you know for both tools required Rollback user rights. And most of the times I contribute from my phone. Please look at below for deference good faith and vandalism edits. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 18:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Good faith edit
 * 1) Special:Diff/906536791
 * 2) Special:Diff/906536328
 * 3) Special:Diff/906535767
 * Vandalism edit
 * 1) Special:Diff/906564720
 * 2) Special:Diff/906501179
 * 3) Special:Diff/906535772
 * OK, we can discuss Huggle and Stiki later on. You generally do need the Rollback permission to use them, but with Stiki your name can be added to a list of permitted users without Rollback permissions. If you complete this course you will be sure to be granted Rollback rights, but if you want to start experimenting with Stiki once we've done the initial part of the course I will be happy to ask for your name to be added to that list.
 * Now, for your answer above, I didn't actually ask for three examples of each - I asked you to explain the difference, and how you would tell them apart. Please explain that, in your own words.
 * (I'm guessing from your response that you've looked at a previous student's course, as you've basically answered the next question, which I haven't asked you yet. I would ask that you avoid the temptation to look at those, you really will learn a lot more from the course if you tackle each question by referring back to the relevant policies and thinking about it independently.) Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  20:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In my view good faith is those edit we don’t have clear evidence (reference) that is correct, in that case user can act good faith. Vandalism is those edits are deliberate wills adding false information, removing all or part of the page content. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 16:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that isn't really quite right. The distinction between vandalism and good faith editing is intent. If an editor is intentionally harming the page, that is classed as vandalism. If their intent is not to harm, then it's classed as good faith, even if it was against policy, removing referenced content, etc.
 * The difficult bit is determining what someone's intent is, when you only have the edit to go on. That's not easy, and so where there is any room for doubt, we are required to assume good faith. What we need to do is think about whether you can imagine any possible scenarios where someone might have made the effort without any intention of doing any harm. To give you a few examples:
 * Someone typing 'sofundriugbrdiubgsorsufnwgsirubgiu' into the lead section of an article could be simply vandalising the page; on the other hand, it could be a new editor testing whether they really can edit a page. A lot of new users, coming to the site for the first time, type a load of garbage in just to see if they can really edit. That wouldn't be vandalism, and since we don't know whether it's innocent or intentionally disruptive, we assume it's a test edit.
 * Someone removing a whole load of good content might be doing it because they believe it is wrong. That isn't vandalism, they're trying to help (even if they are misguided).
 * Someone could be adding a load of unsourced assertions to a BLP, even accusing the individual of a crime - that's not necessarily vandalism, the user might believe what they are saying is true, and be unaware of our sourcing requirements.
 * Some adding 'I fucked your mom' to an article is vandalism - there is no possible good faith reason to do that.
 * Obviously, I would revert and warn a user doing any of the things above - but I'd only treat the last one as vandalism. It's important to be able to distinguish between vandalism and other types of problematic editing, because we deal with it in a different way. I've seen good, prolific patrollers blocked for treating good faith edits as vandalism before, so it's important that we get this right from the outset.
 * Looking through the edits that you classified as vandalism above, I'd actually only consider one of them to be vandalism for sure. I'll explain:
 * Special:Diff/906564720 - this is the removal of an entirely unsourced section in an article. That's not ideal - a better option would be tag it as 'citation needed', but removing it isn't necessarily vandalism. Looking at the IP's edit history, it's clear that they were editing disruptively; strictly speaking though, I wouldn't call it vandalism.
 * Special:Diff/906501179 - this is ungrammatical, and potentially defamatory; on the other hand, they mention a source in their edit summary, and they may believe that this is reasonable content that should be included in the article. I wouldn't class that as vandalism.
 * Special:Diff/906535772 - this is definitely vandalism. Changing the name of the subject in a BLP, without any explanation or possible reason, is quite a common form of silly vandalism. This one I definitely agree with.
 * I hope you can see what I'm getting at with the distinction now. Feel free to ask or comment on anything I've said about this below here, then move onto the next task when you're ready. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Please find three examples of good faith edits that you have reverted, and three examples of vandalism. For each one, please explain your reasoning as to why you think they are, or are not, vandalism.
 * I've given some extra examples to get experience for different type of edits. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 15:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Good faith edit
 * 1) Special:Diff/907399682
 * ✅ Hard to see what they were trying to do, but I agree this was probably a test edit of some sort.
 * 1) Special:Diff/907400714
 * ✅ Yes - user might have thought that was the right location.
 * 1) Special:Diff/908210781
 * ✅ Unexplained changes in date are sometimes a form of subtle vandalism; however, since this IP has no other contributions, and it's possible the editor thought these dates were correct, we should assume good faith.
 * 1) Special:Diff/907399682
 * This is the same as the first one - maybe a copy/paste error?
 * 1) Special:Diff/906536328
 * I suspect that this was a form of subtle vandalism - if you check the IP's contributions, you'll see that there were a lot of similar changes, and I see that the IP address has been blocked since you did this revert. You are not wrong to assume good faith in a case like this though, and there's nothing in the edit itself that tells you it's vandalism - it's the pattern of behaviour that makes me think that it is.
 * Vandalism edit
 * 1) Special:Diff/908228568
 * ✅ Yes - I can't think of a good reason to change the subject's name like that.
 * 1) Special:Diff/908228359
 * I don't think this is vandalism. The user was attempting to replace the image of the subject with another image of the subject. It's not the right way to do it, and since we don't know the ownership of the new file there's a risk that it would have been a copyright violation if it had worked, but I don't see any reason to suspect vandalism here.
 * 1) Special:Diff/908211902
 * ✅ Agreed, changing the name of the subject is quite suspicious.
 * 1) Special:Diff/908211547
 * ✅ Clearly
 * 1) Special:Diff/908211202
 * ✅ Probably a joke, silly vandalism.
 * 1) Special:Diff/907814735
 * This is a difficult one. The editor replaced Mumbai with the name of a different Indian city (written in Hindi). It was unsourced, but it doesn't jump out at me as obvious vandalism. I would probably have treated this as a good faith edit - so, reverted with the 'green rollback' and noted in my edit summary that it was unsourced.
 * 1) Special:Diff/907522509
 * ✅ Google translates that word as 'peripatetic', which is clearly not her name - probably vandalism.
 * Good work on these - please review my comments above, there are a couple I disagree with but you are definitely getting the hang of this. The only general comment I'd make is that you didn't appear to use edit summaries with the good faith reverts. There's no need to use an edit summary when reverting obvious vandalism, but if you are reverting a good faith edit, it's best to leave a short edit summary explaining what was wrong with the revert - just something like 'revert - unsourced' or 'revert test edit' or similar.
 * I'll add the next section shortly. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, next section is below. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  18:56, 31 July 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?
 * We warn them to let them know that how they contribute on Wiki that not right according to Wikipedia policies. We can warn them via Warning templates and writing a personal message on user talk page. When we will use warning templates It's can be single-level or multi-level warning based in the situation.
 * ✅ Correct - the primary function of the warning is to let them know that what they are doing is problematic, and to give them links to information telling them why it is wrong. It has other functions as well though - if they are making multiple problematic edits, it allows other patrollers to keep track of what they've been doing, and escalate their warnings accordingly; and, should they be reported to AIV, it allows admins to see that they have been warned multiple times and are still editing disruptively, so they have justification for blocking.


 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
 * Per WP:UWLEVELS, when someone had very strong bad faith in that cease we can jump on 4im warning if the edits are many articles. use it against to stop edits ASAP, where It's clear that there are no good edits.
 * ✅ Yes - either because the user has made multiple bad faith edits but nobody has warned them yet, or because they make a single, seriously egregious edit. Racist/sexist/homophobic abuse perhaps, or inserting unsourced allegations of criminality into a BLP, that sort of thing - not just regular vandalism.


 * Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?
 * Yes, per H:SUBST were instructed to do substitute a template if we are adding it manually on user talk page so that content will displayed. Via Twinkle It's done automatically.
 * ✅ Yes - you'll probably never need to worry about that, because tools like Twinkle, Huggle and Stiki all do it for you - but should you ever have to do it manually, remember to sub.


 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * I'd like to assistance from an administrator at WP:AIV or WP:AN or WP:ANEW. Reporting can be using Twinkle. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 19:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ If it's obvious vandalism, use AIV; if it's a complex case, and you would have to explain why you believe it's vandalism, go to ANI. (ANEW isn't for vandalism - it's for 'good faith' edit warring, where the parties involved both believe their version of the page is better.)

Well done on these questions, all good answers. Sorry for the delay in responding - I didn't receive the notification that you'd added this, and I'm not sure why because your ping above seems to be properly formed and you signed in the same edit, so it should have come through, strange. Anyway, I'll add the next section shortly. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  15:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Next section is below - enjoy! Girth Summit  (blether) 17:17, 6 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.

Please check this reverted difference and warnings. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 15:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC) Good work on these - see my comments above about a few of them, but mostly correct. I'll upload the next section shortly. Girth Summit  (blether) 00:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC) OK, new section below. Some of it you are obviously already familiar with, so hopefully this should be an easy one! Girth Summit  (blether) 17:03, 12 August 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.

Semi-protection is the level allows confirmed/auto-confirmed users to edit it normally. Restricted editing a page for new user (non auto-confirmed) and IP's.
 * In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
 * This information is correct, but you haven't described the circumstances under which this should be applied - please expand on that.
 * When multiple non auto-confirmed or IP's has vandalism edit on a page, especially on BLP.
 * ✅ Correct - it's when simply blocking won't work, because multiple IPs/accounts are doing it. Usually happens when a subject is in the public eye for something, perhaps a person who is in the news or whatever, and lots of people are looking at the article - a few of them like to vandalise the page while they're there. This is far-and-away the most common type of protection that you are likely to request when doing counter-vandalism work.

Low-volume of traffic, it’s similar as semi-protection, anyone can edit but edits from IPs/new users will be not visible until approved by PCR.
 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?
 * This information is correct, but you haven't described the circumstances under which this should be applied - please expand on that.
 * When vandalism or content disputes to be hide and allow new or IP's constructively contribute.
 * ✅ Yes, this is used for pages that attract long-term but low levels of vandalism, rather than a sudden spike. It allows people to contribute, but they don't go live until someone has checked them.

Highest level of protection, only administrators can edit and move. When vandalism couldn't be stopped with semi-protection and/or pending change protection. Mostly high visibility pages and high visibility templates are fully protected.
 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * This information is correct, but you haven't described the circumstances under which this should be applied - please expand on that.
 * When vandalism from extended confirmed accounts and block users cannot stop vandalism on the page.
 * ✅ More or less, although it's more often used to prevent edit warring than vandalism. You very rarely get real vandalism (in the Wikipedia sense of the word) from extended confirmed accounts - vandals tend to get blocked before they get extended confirmed. What's far more common is edit warring, where people have strongly opposing views about what should be in the article, and are causing disruption by reverting each other. Full protection stops the disruption, and forces them to use the talk page or engage in dispute resolution processes.

When an article has been deleted many times and recreated and trying to create a promotional page (non-notable person or company) or attack pages.
 * In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
 * ✅ Yes - salting is done when users are disruptively recreating an article that has been deleted more than once. It doesn't mean the article can never exist in the future - just that the author will need to approach an administrator to convince them to 'unsalt' it, which means they'd need to demonstrate that the subject is notable and they were going to do a good job of writing the article this time.

Most serious cases of vandalism it can be semi-protected for a limited period, that will allow confirmed/auto-confirmed users to request changes on the page.
 * In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
 * ✅ Yes - this is very unusual, but can be used in extreme cases to prevent disruption.

This and this are examples that i've requested for temporary page protection.
 * 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).

Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 18:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi - I think I've worked out what was wrong with the ping - you need to sign your post in the same edit as adding the ping. If you check the page history, you'll see that you added the ping in one edit, then you signed in another edit, then you added a different kind of ping in a third edit. The signature is what triggers the notification system to kick into action - if you forget to sign, add another ping and resign.
 * All of the info you've added above is correct, but I'd like to see a bit more discussion of the circumstances when you should apply for different types of protection - please could you expand on your answers there please? Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  16:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added when pprotection should be applied. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 08:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yay - the ping worked that time! Thanks, and good work - see my comments above. I'll add the next section shortly... Girth Summit  (blether)  09:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Next section below. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.

In case the page or/and file need to delete immediately from Wikipedia and which will bypass community discussion at WP:AFD or/and WP:FFD. I've read CSD and my understanding of the criteria below.
 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

General Article I've added my opinion about CSD. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 17:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * G1 - Patent nonsense. No useful text, not project language, out of project scope.
 * G2 - Test pages. Pages that have been created as test works and no longer needed.
 * G3 - Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes. intended purely to offend or information in the page misinform reader
 * G4 - Recreation of a page deleted after a deletion discussion. Pages deleted via AFD and recreated without any discussion at WP:DRV.
 * G5 - Pages created by a blocked or banned user. Page created during their block or ban and no change since creation by other users.
 * G6 - Technical deletions. Tidying up basically - To move a page, orphaned templates, empty categories, disambiguation pages with only one page.
 * G7 - Author requests deletion. Only author can request or blanked article.
 * G8 - Pages dependent on a non existent page. Talk pages of deleted page or subpage without an article.
 * G9 - Office actions. WMF office reserves the right to speedy-delete a page, must not be reversed without permission from the Foundation.
 * G10 - Attack pages - Pages unsourced negative content or harass someone.
 * G11 - Unambiguous advertising or promotion - Pages which are written only a particular product or company, could be also for an persons often in user space.
 * G12 - Copyright violations. Contet copied directly from another website.
 * G13 - Abandoned Drafts and Articles for creation submissions. Draft or sandbox not edited more then six months.
 * G14 - Unnecessary disambiguation pages. Pages that disambiguate not necessary.
 * A1 - No context. Very short articles, more content to be added, lack of context to identify the subject of the article.
 * A2 - Foreign language articles that are essentially identical to existing articles that exist elsewhere on Wiki. Directly copied contet from other wikis.
 * A3 - No content - articles with no actual content about the subject.
 * A5 - Transwikied content - Already moved to Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikibooks or elsewhere on the wiki.
 * A7 - No indication of importance (people, animals, company, website, events) - Content has no indication of article about people, animals, company, website, events.
 * A9 - No indication of importance (musical recordings) - Content has no indication of article about musical recordings. e.g. personla pay list.
 * A10 - Recently created article, duplicate existing topic - if someone creates a new article and article about that already exist on that subject.
 * A11 - Obviously invented. Subject has been invented by the articles author, even if articles not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify under Wikipedia notability.
 * ✅ Yep - you don't need to keep all of those in your head of course! The most common ones I come across are G12 (copyvio), G11 (promotion) and the occasional G3 (hoax/vandalism) and G10 (attack page).


 * Note that an alternative to Speedy Deletion can be to create a WP:Redirect. If you see an article that is obviously not appropriate, but the article title could be a valid search term for something that we do have an article on, you can replace its text with a redirect to that article. In those circumstances, it's usually a good idea to keep an eye on the article to see whether the author reverts you or reinstates their text manually. If they do, you will need to consider your options - WP:AfD discussions can close with a consensus to redirect, and might be an alternative to CSD if you think the title needs to be kept but the article needs to go. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Next task below...

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.

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.
 * Scenario 1
 * WP:CSD
 * ✅ You're right - there isn't enough context here to work out who he's talking about. G3 or G10 would also work for this - I'd probably be more tempted to go for one of them - it's not just the lack of context which is the problem here!

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.
 * Scenario 2
 * WP:CSD
 * ✅ In Twinkle, you'll note that there are two options for G11 - in this case, I would choose the 'Promotional user page under a promotional username' one - that makes sure the deleting admin notices the username, which would in this case be blocked.

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.
 * Scenario 3
 * I'll check that person is notable or not, if not then WP:AFD.
 * ✅ I like that you are thinking about checking for sources yourself - always do that if a page isn't blatant vandalism or advertising. AfD would be an option here, but I would be thinking about a CSD A7 - there's no real claim of significance there. (Anyone can self-publish on SoundCloud or appear in school plays, and 5,000 sub on YouTube is a long way short of a claim of significance). Having said that, it's good to be cautious - AfD would work as well.

A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content: Bazz Ward was a great roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz. (Attribution: 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.)
 * Scenario 4
 * WP:CSD
 * So this was a trick question. I think that most admins would accept an A3 on this, but a better option might be to redirect - there probably isn't enough material to write an article about Bazz Ward, but he is mentioned in some of our articles, as a roadie who used to tour with The Nice alongside Lemmie (who went on to become much more notable). In this case, the perfect answer would be to redirect to that article.

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?
 * Scenario 5
 * WP:CSD
 * Please note that this is a two-part question - please could you expand and say whether you would act differently in each scenario?
 * First, When I've seen that website is "All Rights Reserved" it's clearly WP:CSD. Second, If nothing at the bottom, in that case also WP:CSD because that copied and pasted. But in both case if article creator reply thar (s)he have permission to publish in Wikipedia then I'd like to ask creator to send permission via OTRS from author.
 * ✅ Correct - the important part to understand is that we assume material is covered by copyright unless we are certain that it is not. Copyright applies regardless of whether or not the website makes a claim to it.

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.
 * Scenario 6
 * WP:CSD
 * That's not the first step. Please could you read A2 again, and expand on what you need to do?
 * We can apply WP:CSD because that is not project language.
 * Not necessarily. So, the first thing to do is grab some of the text and put it into Google translate or similar. That should give you an indication of what the language is, and what the article is about. If it's promotional, an attack page or another kind of vandalism, then CSD it for that. If it looks like encyclopedic content, check the relevant Wikipedia in that language - is this a direct copy/paste of that article? If it is, then A2 applies; if it's not, then you can tag it for translation. We don't automatically delete stuff in other languages.

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
 * Scenario 7
 * WP:CSD

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?
 * Scenario 8
 * WP:CSD
 * This is another two-part question - please expand your answer.
 * First, If it's user page then I can clear itself or can suggest user how (s)he can write user page. Second, I'd like to apply WP:CSD.
 * Definitely write on part 2; if it's on a user page however, I wouldn't advise taking any action. It was probably just someone testing how to edit - they'll probably come back later and tidy it up, but if they don't, it's not causing any problems. Only get involved in changing other people's user pages if they are in breach of WP:UPOL - by promoting something, or disparaging somebody, or whatever.


 * I've added my options, please check. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 06:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of these are good - please see above for a few I'd like you to expand on. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  10:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've expanded, please check. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 14:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good - see my comments above, I think we can move on to the next section. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:05, 24 August 2019 (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.

Personal attack or vandalism (if summary should be removed) or privacy related issue I'd like to ask admin via Special:EmailUser or via IRC wikipedia-en-revdel, and about copyright violations, I'd tag Copyvio-revdel in the article. I'd like to request to oversight team via Special:EmailUser/Oversight or oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org.
 * If you believe an edit needs to be revision deleted, how would you request that?
 * If you believe that it's so serious it needs oversight, how would you request that?
 * I've added my opinion. Warm Regards,  ZI Jony  (Talk) 14:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Great answers - and completely correct. Personally, I use the IRC channel to accomplish this, it usually gets handled in a few seconds. Just make sure you log out after your request has been handled - non-admins aren't allowed to stay logged in there.
 * You can also request oversight on IRC, but typing !oversight (rather than !admin) when you log in. Don't post the diff however - wait for an oversighter to respond, and ask them to pm (private message) you. If nobody responds, say that you're going to e-mail the material, then log out and e-mail it to the oversight address.
 * The question of exactly what needs to be oversighted is a bit of a tricky one, and I've received different answers from different admins - the guidance is somewhat subjective, as different people have different views on what constitutes grossly offensive material. I received some good advice from Oshwah once about this though - basically, if you suspect something might need revdel, go onto IRC and post it as a question - does this need rev deletion? Once you've been given the answer a few times, you'll start to get a feel for it. I've had quite a few requests declined in my time, I must have a pretty low threshold for gross offensiveness, but I've more or less found the level now. Next section to follow. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Next section below... Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 15:26, 26 August 2019 (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: Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particular 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 (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.


 * 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.

I'll look (s)he behaviour, if ok then leave the username alone, because it could be real name.
 * BGates
 * ✅ The only caveat is if they were editing extensively in areas around Microsoft - it could be an attempt to impersonate Bill Gates - not explicit enough to be actionable on its own, but worth starting a conversation if their editing pattern was concerning. But I agree, most probably leave them alone.

Promotional user name, I'd look first edit history, if looks good contortions and not have promotional edit then I'll notify user amd suggest to read WP:UPOL for change (s)he username. Else, report to WP:UAA
 * LMedicalCentre
 * ✅ Excellent answer. If they're editing promotionally, report; if not, start a conversation and explain why they should probably change their username.

Possible disruptive, report to WP:UAA,
 * G1rth Summ1t
 * ✅ Yes - this is a misleading username, attempting to look like my username. I've come across and reported a few of these in the past, including

Possible WP:COI, if it's two separate username then ok, like Joeat and BurgerKing.
 * JoeAtBurgerKing
 * ✅ Spot on. The COI with Burger King is clear, but the username isn't a violation because it identifies an individual. I'd let them know about COI (unless they'd already put a COI template on their userpage), and would quickly check their editing history, but provided they were playing by the rules (e.g. making edit requests at articles connected with their company rather than editing directly) I'd leave them alone.

I'll notify user amd suggest to read WP:UPOL for change (s)he username.
 * JoeTheSysop
 * Personally, I'd probably report this one immediately. While I guess it could be a joke, impersonating a sysop is a clear policy violation - changing their username wouldn't optional, it would be essential. What would probably happen would be a block, with a note from the blocking admin explaining that they will need to request a username change in order to be unblocked.

I'll look (s)he behaviour, if ok then I'll notify user amd suggest to read WP:UPOL for change (s)he username. If not, then report to WP:UAA
 * D0naldTrump
 * Again, I think I'd report this as a misleading username, given the high-profile nature of the person who they are impersonating. Again, this would likely result in a block with a username change required for unblock.

Report to WP:UAA
 * FuckAllYouAssholes
 * ✅ Yes, this is an offensive and disruptive username - it would be very hard to have a collaborative conversation with someone who chose that as their username!

I'll notify user amd suggest to read WP:UPOL for change (s)he username.
 * Oshwaah
 * So, if you weren't aware that there is another user who is called Oshwah, then you likely wouldn't have suggested the username change; I assume that you are aware that Oshwah is a prolific admin, and that this is probably trolling, so I'd report this immediately to UAA as a misleading username.

I'll notify user amd suggest to read WP:UPOL for change (s)he username. Looks violating WP:NOEMOJI
 * ✅ Yes - this is in violation of NOEMOJI, but that isn't enforced by UAA, it just requires discussion if anyone is bothered about it. With a harmless emoji like this, I'd probably just ignore it unless they were vandalising or editing disruptively - in which case I'd report them for that, not for the username.
 * I've added answer, I'm also an member of local user account renamer team. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 17:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting - I just noticed your closing comment about being a member of the account renamer after I finished giving feedback about your answers! You clearly have some experience in this area then - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about the feedback I've given you. I've set out above my interpretation of policy and practice on enwiki with regards to a few of these - we disagree on a few of them, I'd be happy to discuss them further if you like. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 19:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that discussion given chance to learn, I'd be happy for further discussion. Warm Regards,  ZI Jony  (Talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I just meant that if you disagree with any of my comments above, I'd be interested to know your perspective - I've never been involved in account renaming, so I assume you are quite familiar with the policies around usernames - if you disagree with any of my comments above, let me know. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * When you ping me please put ZI cap, otherwise ping will not notify me. User creation log is for new user who may not aware our username policy in that case we should discuss JoeTheSysop and D0naldTrump before report WP:UAA. Regarding Oshwaah why I'd like to discuss because I've seen some names in my real life like Hossain & Hossin, Aamir & Amir and Kamal & Qamal all three names are same but spelling in English are defferent it's completely their own discoution how they write. Oshwaah & Oshwah could be also name but their spelling are defferent. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 07:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops - good call! I normally copy/paste it, must have made the mistake of typing it once and then repeated my mistake, apologies!
 * With regard to your responses, I think that your views are definitely within the boundaries of the policy, as we are encouraged to AGF - perhaps dealing with vandals so much has eroded my GF somewhat! Having seen numerous examples of dubious names like this, I'm more inclined to assume that they are trolling. Someone has to know a little bit about Wikipedia already to know what a Sysop is; and I'm not sure that Oshwah is an actual name - I just Googled it, and the first couple of pages of hits seemed to be about our admin. However, you certainly would not be wrong to discuss with the user prior to reporting, and only to act if they refused to change their name or started behaving disruptively.
 * I'll upload the next section shortly later today, cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  07:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

- new section below... Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 17:57, 27 August 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 Responding to threats of harm carefully and respond to the questions below.

I'd send e-mail to  or Special:EmailUser/Emergency with details of the threat and a link to the diff. After that contact administrator privately via email or IRC and notify about the email as above, else connect #wikipedia-en-revdel or #wikimedia-stewards. I'd react in any case even it's empty, I'v to send the email.
 * 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)?
 * , please see. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 16:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

✅ Yes, all good. I'm on mobile now, will update with next section when I'm in front of my computer. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 16:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC) Next section below - just so you know, we're almost at the end of the course now, just a couple more things to discuss. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  09:34, 30 August 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.

Trolls and vvandal have demanded attention and recognition, it fuels them. The key is to revert their edits without just talking to them. When they see that they have somehow offended you or caused problems, they will continue to do so. You must cut off the fuel source.
 * Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?
 * ✅ Correct - they are often just looking for a reaction. The more you react, the more they will want to vandalise. If your only reaction is to revert, report and ignore (see also RBI for discussion of how to treat long-term abusers), they will often get bored and go away. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 07:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Troll will always attack me personally whatever it is. Sometimes it's best to avoid it. However, a good faith editor always avoided personal attacks on me quietly. Sometimes they can recognize, some of them don't even know our policy about avoiding all personal attacks. I'll just alert them with a twinkle or leave a nice personal message with links to our policy. If they still don't get it, I'll recognize them as a troll and ignore them completely. If the trolls still continue to attack me, I will inform our admin on the administrator's noticeboard.
 * 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 it's worth considering what factors you would need to take into account when considering this.)
 * So, it's often quite easy to tell if someone is trolling you, and personal attacks do sometimes come into it. However, remember that good faith users are often really annoyed when someone reverts them, and they might be quite angry, or even be rude to you. If you are in any doubt about whether someone is trolling you, go back and check the revert. If you are confident that it was real vandalism, then ignore them and report if necessary. If you think it might have been a good faith edit but still needed to be reverted, then take the time to explain why you reverted. Don't rise to their anger, just explain calmly - usually, in my experience, people are willing to apologise if they have been rude, and discuss the actual edits.
 * Occasionally, you might find that you even made a mistake, and reverted when you shouldn't have - that happens to everyone, don't worry about it, but do be prepared to apologise immediately and fulsomely. I've seen some really bad apologies in my time - people say things like 'I do 20,000 reverts per year, I can't be expected to get them all right, just chill out!' - don't fall into that trap. Just say how sorry you are to have disrupted their editing, and you'll try your best not to do anything like that again - it's the best way to calm the situation down, and hopefully avoid any bad feeling between you and the other editor in the future. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  07:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * please check my opening. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 17:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good answers ZI Jony. I'll add the next section shortly, almost finished the course now... Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  07:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Next section below, on rollback. Please review and, if you would be interested in applying for the permission, answer the questions below. Once I've reviewed them, I'll recommend that you apply at WP:PERM for the permission, and I will add a note of support to your application. After that, this course is pretty much finished - just teh final examination, which I am sure you will have no problems with. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Advantage of rollback is its speed is 100 rollbacks per minute, revert vandalism as quickly as possible. Rollbacks no need an edit summary to understand why that edit was made. Reverting vandalism, it's positive to use own user pages, to revert own edits, to revert edits of blocked or banned users or to revert multiple unhelpful edits from misguided users. it's negative to use revert edits that are not vandalism (unsourced additions/good faith/removal of content) etc.
 * Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.
 * ✅ Correct, although I'd caution you against making 100 rollbacks per minute! Our use of rollback is subject to accountability, so make sure you are confident that you are using it appropriately each and every time. Huggle especially allows you to revert vandalism very quickly, but go carefully - I've seen prolific Hugglers blocked in the past because they got careless.

When didn't mean to revert edit, in that case can be self-revert manually with a edit summary. Else, wanted to revert edit but not rollback manual revert with a dummy edit and insert an explanatory edit summary.
 * Hopefully this will never happen, but it does occasionally. If you accidentally use rollback, what should you do?
 * ✅ Perfect answer - either self-revert, or add an edit summary with a note that the rollback use was accidental, and explaining why you reverted.

NO, if I'd like to leave an edit summary then should use Twinkle blue rollback.
 * Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?
 * ✅ Correct - it's actually possible to install a script to force you to add an edit summary when using rollback, but I agree with your comments - if I want to leave an edit summary, I use a green or a blue Twinkle rollback.
 * I've given answer thar you expected. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 20:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Good answers - I'm satisfied that you would know how to use it. If you make an application, ping me and I will add my support. I'll now add the exam questions below - feel free to go through the questions at your own pace, and ping me when you're finished and I'll review. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  21:26, 4 September 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).
 * 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?
 * I'll do good faith revert as test edit, and give a uw-test1 warning. If they continued despite after multiple warnings, I'd report to AIV.
 * 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'll correct that and I'd check the contribution history of user and discuss it with user especially if that's new user.
 * ✅ Nice answer. Better to discuss, especially if they are new, but if they kept doing it it would become disruptive, so eventually this would end up at AIV too.
 * 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'll do good faith revert as test edit, and give a uw-test1 warning. If they continued after multiple warnings, then revert as vandalism and I'd report to AIV.
 * 1) A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
 * I'll do good faith revert as test edit, and give a uw-test1 warning.
 * ✅ (You didn't mention about what you would do after the first time, but given your answers above I assume you would issue escalating warnings and eventually report for 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?
 * This is wrong summary, is not enough to remove a sourced information from an article. I'd revert and issue a uw-delete1 warning. If user not understand then I'll discus with a personal message. If they continued then I'd report to WP:ANI.
 * So, the one step you didn't mention here is checking that the sourcing is reliable, and that it supports the information they were removing. This is especially important with BLPs - people often insert dubious content into articles based on trashy sources (tabloid newspapers, gossip magazines, etc) - if the sources are no good, or the information isn't supported by them, the removal may be valid even though the edit summary is dubious. Remember as well that inexperienced users often don't know about edit summaries - if it is the subject of the article, or their lawyer, they probably don't know how to go about editing properly - COI would say they shouldn't edit, but nor should we revert them if the material isn't reliable supported. Always check - remember, you are accountable for adding the assertions back into the article, you don't want to be held responsible for adding libellous statements back in! If you're unsure, start a conversation with the editor about why they are removing the material, or ask for a second opinion before reinstating it - you will always be welcome on my talk page if you want me to take a look at anything.
 * This is wrong summary, is not enough to remove a sourced information from an article. I'd revert and issue a uw-delete1 warning. If user not understand then I'll discus with a personal message. If they continued then I'd report to WP:ANI.
 * So, the one step you didn't mention here is checking that the sourcing is reliable, and that it supports the information they were removing. This is especially important with BLPs - people often insert dubious content into articles based on trashy sources (tabloid newspapers, gossip magazines, etc) - if the sources are no good, or the information isn't supported by them, the removal may be valid even though the edit summary is dubious. Remember as well that inexperienced users often don't know about edit summaries - if it is the subject of the article, or their lawyer, they probably don't know how to go about editing properly - COI would say they shouldn't edit, but nor should we revert them if the material isn't reliable supported. Always check - remember, you are accountable for adding the assertions back into the article, you don't want to be held responsible for adding libellous statements back in! If you're unsure, start a conversation with the editor about why they are removing the material, or ask for a second opinion before reinstating it - you will always be welcome on my talk page if you want me to take a look at anything.

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-delete1 warning
 * 1) A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
 * uw-defamatory1 warning
 * Not bad, but uw-attempt2 would be a better choice.
 * 1) A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
 * uw-efsummary warning
 * 1) A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
 * uw-vandalism1 warning
 * 1) A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
 * uw-delete1 warning
 * - as above, just make sure that the sourcing is reliable and supports the content - this is a BLP after all.
 * 1) A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
 * uw-test1 warning
 * 1) A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
 * uw-vandalism1 warning
 * 1) A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
 * uw-biog1 warning
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
 * uw-delete4im warning
 * ✅}
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
 * Report to WP:AIV as vandalism after a level4 warning
 * 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-upv or uw-harass1 warning
 * ✅ This is a bit more personal - if you've had problems with them in the past, you would be within your rights to report to ANI and they'd probably be blocked on the spot for something like that. Your userpage though, so your call.
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * uw-image1 or uw-test1 warning
 * ✅ Yes, either of those would be fine.
 * 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-upv or uw-harass1 warning
 * ✅ This is a bit more personal - if you've had problems with them in the past, you would be within your rights to report to ANI and they'd probably be blocked on the spot for something like that. Your userpage though, so your call.
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * uw-image1 or uw-test1 warning
 * ✅ Yes, either of those would be fine.
 * ✅ Yes, either of those would be fine.

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)!
 * CSD tag
 * 1) Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
 * CSD tag
 * 1) Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
 * CSD tag
 * 1) A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
 * CSD tag
 * 1) Fuck Wiki!
 * CSD tag
 * CSD tag
 * 1) Fuck Wiki!
 * CSD tag
 * CSD tag

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
 * I'd check user contribution, if that's WP:COI then would report to UAA. Else, drop a personal message about username policy, because we can't block disruptive usernames unless there are violation our policy.
 * ✅ Great answer. If they were editing about their band, it's an immediate report; if they're editing about other stuff, a polite conversation is probably the way to go.
 * 1) Fartypants
 * Looks borderline, I'd check user contribution if edits are look good then leave it. If vandalising then report to WP:AIV.
 * ✅ Good call - it's a bit rude, but not outright offensive. If they're doing good work, no need to interfere.
 * 1) Brian's Bot
 * Misleading username, report to UAA
 * ✅ Yes, clear violation.
 * 1) sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
 * Confusing username, I'd check user contribution if edits are look good then drop a personal message about username policy and advice to change (s)he username. If vandalising then report to WP:AIV.
 * ✅ Good call.
 * 1) WikiAdmin
 * Misleading username, report to UAA
 * 12:12, 23 June 2012
 * Confusing username, because looks like timestamp. I'd drop a personal message about username policy and advice to change (s)he username.
 * ✅ This would be an acceptable approach; personally, since this has obviously been deliberately made to look like one of our signature timestamps, this looks deliberately disruptive to me - I'd probably report directly to UAA.
 * 1) PMiller
 * It's look ok
 * ✅ Yes, this is fine.
 * 1) OfficialJustinBieber
 * Misleading username, The term "Official" refer to the promotional unsername. I'd report to WP:UAA.
 * ✅ Yes - they would be blocked for impersonating a famous person, and given the option to request a username change to obtain an unblock.
 * ✅ Yes - they would be blocked for impersonating a famous person, and given the option to request a username change to obtain an unblock.

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)?
 * Vandalism is the specific exemptions to the edit warring policy. Important to realize that vandalism might not always be thought of as exempted. Restrict itself to applying to exemption on obvious vandalism, and subtle cases where appropriate.
 * ✅ Correct - if it is vandalism, you can revert as much as you like without worrying about 3RR. Do remember though (patrollers sometimes forget in the heat of the moment), this only applies to blatant vandalism. Removal of content, insertion of unsourced material (except for BLPs) - tread carefully there.
 * 1) Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
 * Report to WP:AIV
 * 1) Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
 * Report to WP:ANI
 * 1) Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
 * Report to WP:UAA
 * 1) Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
 * Report to WP:ANI
 * 1) Where and how should an edit war be reported?
 * Report to WP:AN3
 * 1) Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
 * Report to BLP noticeboard
 * ✅ Note as well that BLP Noticeboard is a good place to go if you suspect that someone is adding improperly sourced controversial material to an article, but you're not quite confident enough to keep reverting beyond 3RR. In the past, I've gone there to get another opinion - there are usually other editors watching who will respond quickly.
 * Thanks a lot for this course to improve myself. I've completed my final exam with my answers. Waiting for your feedback and completion declaration. Thanks once again. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 14:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Great work - lots of really thoughtful answers. There are one or two where I've provided a bit more feedback and suggestions, but basically this is a pass with flying colours - congratulations! Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
 * Report to BLP noticeboard
 * ✅ Note as well that BLP Noticeboard is a good place to go if you suspect that someone is adding improperly sourced controversial material to an article, but you're not quite confident enough to keep reverting beyond 3RR. In the past, I've gone there to get another opinion - there are usually other editors watching who will respond quickly.
 * Thanks a lot for this course to improve myself. I've completed my final exam with my answers. Waiting for your feedback and completion declaration. Thanks once again. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 14:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Great work - lots of really thoughtful answers. There are one or two where I've provided a bit more feedback and suggestions, but basically this is a pass with flying colours - congratulations! Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:33, 9 September 2019 (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 96%. Well done!

As a graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox (make sure you replace your enrollee userbox) as well as the graduation message posted on your talk page (this can be treated the same as a barnstar). :