User:Illusion Flame/CVUA/Shadow345110

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 and ping me once you complete each section.
 * How to use this page


 * This course is designed to last, in total, about 1-2 weeks. This may be more or less, depending on your level of experience prior to the training.

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.

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 by a contributor who thinks they are helping but does not know the Wikipedia polices.
 * Vandalism is an edit by a vandal who intentionally puts edits on Wikipedia that are against Wikipedia polices.
 * ✅ - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:24, 19 June 2023 (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
 * Special:MobileDiff/1150089703 This one does not follow Wikipedia polices but the user was trying to help. It would be considered bias.
 * Correct. That’s biased and unsourced. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Special:MobileDiff/1077676881 Someone did this one before the match actually happened that is why it had to be reverted.
 * I agree with this. The rest of the diffs also need explanations, so please add some . - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Special:MobileDiff/1075979142 Someone made this edit before it was announced that it was going to be a match even if it was obvious. When this edit was made it was just a talk show so it had to be reverted.
 * Makes sense, thanks for providing an explanation. I would have been confused otherwise. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Vandalism
 * Special:MobileDiff/1133009791 I actually reverted this one, the user added letters to words randomly and changed words that did not need changing.
 * Looks like a test edit to me. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think so too we did have a conversation and they asked for my help so I gave them a bunch of helpful pages. Here is the user's talk page User talk:Cyberbuddy-manas. Jack345110 (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

for when you get your internet back again I have some vandalism from to replace the test edit. I managed to revert one of their edits but somone beat me to this one. Special:MobileDiff/1161465944 Jack345110 (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Special:MobileDiff/1145856893 This ip address removed needed information and removed references.
 * Not sure what to goal of the editor was here, but not helpful. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Special:MobileDiff/1122639881 This ip address removed the correct name and replaced it with something I don't understand.
 * Not sure I would assume this is vandalism. You were right to revert, but I would ask them to clarify on their talk page. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * They then changed the name again to something I still didn't understand . 06:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I know, and you were correct to revert, but it may have been a good-faith edit and you should discuss it with the user ideally. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry didn't mean to sound rude there. I just have alot of self doubt. Jack345110 (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So I checked on the ip address that made this edit and every single edit he made was reverted the ip address is . Jack345110 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2023 (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?
 * Just so they know the consequences or in case they didn't know what they was doing was against Wikipedia polices.
 * I agree. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
 * When a user does not stop vandalizing after being warned multiple times.
 * ❌ This is a common misconception. Please review WP:UWUL again and provide the correct answer below . - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

When a user or ip address continuously uses disruptive edits it will be the first and final warning. Jack345110 (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. It’s a single warning that if the user vandalizes after, you should report. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?
 * Yes you should substitute a template on a user talk page. You can substitute a template by adding subst at the start for example
 * Correct. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * Report to an administrator.
 * That’s rights, but where should you report them? Please provide a link . - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

You should report to WP:AIV. Jack345110 (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:36, 20 June 2023 (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.
 * can be used on a user's talk page for blatant vandalism. It can also be used for test edits. Jack345110 (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. It’s usually used for a first offense only. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * can be used for unintentional removal of content.
 * Correct, except it’s not always unintentional. We can WP:AGF at first, but if it proceeds after warnings, it’s probably WP:BADFAITH. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * can be used if a user made an edit that is disruptive that might not have been intentional.
 * I agree. Usually used I’d it doesn’t fall under another template. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It appears you missed this. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @ no I'm just doing it in my own little order. Jack345110 (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2023 (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


 * Under the comments section, please explain your revert . - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users
Occasionally, some vandals will not appreciate your good work and try to harass or troll you. In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, you should not engage with them and leave a note at WP:ANI. If they vandalise your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. Please read WP:DENY.


 * Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?
 * So you do not give them the reaction they want.
 * That’s a good start. what’s the end goal of denying recognition? Yes we don’t want to give them a reaction, but what’s the goal of doing so? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hopefully they'll get bored of vandalizing because we are not giving them recognition. Shadow (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you? Provide example diffs (don’t have to be yours) if possible.
 * A good faith user is just trying to see what they have done wrong so they are normally quite polite. whereas a troll trying to harass you might try to verbally abuse you.
 * Perfect! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:12, 2 July 2023 (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?
 * when a page has been persistently vandalised by anonymous and registered users.
 * Yes, but only if the registered accounts are not autoconfirmed. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?
 * When an infrequently edited page has alot of vandalism, BLP violations, edit-warring or other types of disruption from unregistered or new users.
 * I agree. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * In what circumstances should a page be extended confirmed protected?
 * Specific topic areas authorised by ArbCom or high risk templates where a template protection would be too restrictive. Could also be used if semi-protection failed.
 * Correct. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * When a page is persistently being disrupted by extended confirmed users.
 * True, but what type of “disruption” is this usually for? And are there any other reasons? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * When a page has persistent disruption from extended confirmed users. Critical templates and modules. A reason why a page could be fully protected is a content dispute or edit warring.
 * I agree. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
 * When a page has been deleted but keeps getting recreated.
 * Exactly! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
 * Only when the most severe types of vandalism occur.
 * Yep. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi, extended confirmed, or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.
 * ✅ using an alternative method of asking if certain pages should be protected. They have passed and have a satisfactory knowledge of the protection policy. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:22, 20 July 2023 (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?
 * Blatant hoaxes or vandalism, if it is a test page, and nonsense.
 * Yep, that’s a few of the possible criteria. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:15, 13 July 2023 (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.
 * ✅ using an alternative method of asking if certain pages should be deleted. They have passed and have a satisfactory knowledge of the speedy deletion policy. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What speedy deletion criteria do you think is the most important and why? (There are no wrong answers :)
 * For me it is a mixture between G3 and G10
 * Why are those the most important, in your opinion? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Because if we didn't delete them type of pages people might think Wikipedia is unsafe. Shadow 345110   (talk)  17:54, 13 July 2023 (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 do about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).


 * DJohnson
 * Misleading Username. Assume good faith. Discuss my concern to the user and request to change their username.
 * This appears to be an attempt to impersonate The Rock. Correct. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * LMedicalCentre
 * Promotional Username. If edits are appropriate administrators can give them a chance to change their name. If not then administrators can use the autoblock.
 * I agree, but sysops would use normal blocks, not auto block to deal with the account if its edits are promotional. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Fuqudik
 * Offensive Username. Immediately block this user's account.
 * Right on. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ColesStaff
 * Implys Shared Use. If more then one person is using the account then consequences will be used depending on the situation. In some cases the account will be blocked.
 * True. In some cases, it’s important to wait for the account to edit. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Misleading Username. Assume good faith, request user to change name as it can be confusing to others.
 * I agree. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * 172.295.64.27
 * Misleading Username. Assume good faith, request user to change as people could confuse it as an ip address.
 * Correct! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Bieberisgay
 * Offensive Username. Immediately block this user's account.
 * Correct. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Practice
Congratulations, now have mastered the "basics" so we can move on. Please complete the following practice test, to help prepare for the final exam.

The following 3 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?
 * Vandalism because he is putting hurtful and offensive statements about a living person deliberately.
 * Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?
 * WP:HOAX
 * 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?
 * No as the ip address is causing obvious and offensive vandalism.
 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?
 * IPvandal
 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
 * Offensive statements and vandalism on the article Justin Bieber.
 * All correct! They are also breaching WP:BLP. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * All correct! They are also breaching WP:BLP. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

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?
 * Vandalism because it is disruptive and against Wikipedia policies though could potentially be a test edit. Shadow 345110  (talk)  20:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, probably is a test edit, but if it continues we can assume bad bait vandalism. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?
 * Welcome-unconstructive
 * I think this would be a fine one, if they’ve only done the one test edit. uw-test1 would also be acceptable. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * It would be appropriate because you have given them warnings already. Shadow 345110   (talk)  20:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. You don’t have to use all of the warnings to determine if an account is a VOA. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?
 * Probably just have an extended time on their block. Shadow 345110   (talk)  20:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No; the block would definitely be indefinitely long as that is the block standard time for VOA. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?
 * vandal
 * Yep! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥


 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
 * Deliberate disruptive editing. Shadow 345110  (talk)  20:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Acceptable. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

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?
 * Yes as it advertises the company and is not a reliable website. Shadow 345110   (talk)  18:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * If you do revert which warning template would you use?
 * I would use subst:Uw-advert2. Shadow 345110   (talk)  18:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s fine. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?
 * I would tag it with Db-g11. Shadow 345110   (talk)  18:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If the content is promotional yes, if not, you could always tag is as a copyright violation. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * I would not report the user just yet as I thunk it might be too early. I would suggest to change the name if they don't and are editing inappropriately then I would report them. Shadow 345110   (talk)  18:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Per the username policy: “The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional: Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, organization, website, product, musical group or band, team, club, creative group, or organized event. They have already edited inappropriately and are clearly trying to promote a company. Please re-review the username policy and try again. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies I am trying to get it done as quick as I can because I'm not going to be very active so sorry if I make mistakes. Shadow 345110   (talk)  18:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies I am trying to get it done as quick as I can because I'm not going to be very active so sorry if I make mistakes. Shadow 345110   (talk)  18:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Results
Your Score: ✅ - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

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. Please try to focus on anti-vandalism during this period so I can assess your progress. 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 on my talk page. If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look. Once I email you the final exam, I will no longer be able to answer questions for you, so ask them now.
 * This starts when you leave a comment below: - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @ I'm ready. Shadow 345110   (talk)  18:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Great! Start reverting vandalism, requesting pages be protected, tagging pages for speedy deletion, and reporting users to AIV. I’ll check on your progress throughout the 5 days and either grant you access to the final exam, or review a few more things first. Good luck! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Shadow 345110   (talk)  18:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)