User:Michael Anon/CVUA/StudentTest

__NOINDEX__ This is a short test based on your knowledge of the course you have taken at CVUA. There is no deadline, so take your time. It will be used for me to determine whether you are ready to pass the academy and be assigned rollback prvilleges or not. Enjoy :)

✅✅--Chip123456 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Please briefly descirbe below what is vandalism: (1)
 * "Vandalism is [the] addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." It includes, among other things, the illegitimate removal of significant amounts of content,  unwelcome edits to user and user talk pages and, perhaps most commonly, "silly vandalism": the addition of highly implausible information or irrelevant comments to an article. However, where the edit could have been made in good faith (such as the removal of content without any explanation) it should be  assumed to lack the intent required to constitute vandalism. ✅ Good, thorough explanation.--Chip123456 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Please briefly describe below what a good faith edit is: (1)
 * A good faith edit is an page modification made with the aim of helping rather than hindering Wikipedia. Almost all edits should be assumed to have been made in good faith unless there is clear evidence to the contrary; the definition thus covers almost everything from the addition of relevant, well-cited material to the unexplained removal of a significant amounts of content. ✅ No problems here.--Chip123456 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Why do we warn users? (2)
 * Warnings notify a user that their edits appear to have been unconstructive and reverted. This has two different sets of consequences: if the edit was in fact made in good faith, it lets the editor know that they have (probably) made a mistake and suggests how they can improve their edits. Alternatively, if the edit was made in bad faith, the warning lets the vandal know that their unconstructive edits have been undone and that they are being monitored. It also informs that vandal that their behaviour will not be tolerated and, ultimately that there are sanctions that may be imposed for continuing to edit disruptively. However, the overall aim is the same in both circumstances: to attempt to persuade the warned user to edit constructively and improve Wikipedia. (Vandalism: "The purpose of warning a user who has vandalized is to inform the user that the user's conduct is abusive and prohibited, and seek the user's compliance".) ✅ ✅Good explanation of why we use different types of warnings in different circumstances --Chip123456 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) In your opinion, what is better to Wikipedia - block a user or protect a page? Why? (2)
 * There are two primary methods of dealing with persistent vandalism, the context in which I have assumed this question has been asked: blocking users and  protecting pages. Blocking prevents all editing by an account. This limits collateral damage (although  innocent editors may also be affected if IP addresses are blocked) and ensures that a vandal personally experiences the consequences of their disruptive behaviour.
 * The other option is to prevent a specific page being edited either by unconfirmed and unregistered users or  all editors apart from administrators. However, protection is  contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and prevents constructive edits from being made, even if a page is only semi-protected (80% of edits by unregistered users are not vandalism). Furthermore, protecting pages does not force vandals to personally experience any significant consequences to dissuade them from disrupting Wikipedia by leaving the opportunity to vandalise the many remaining unprotected pages.
 * I therefore believe that blocking is the preferable ("better") way to deal with vandalism due to the personal consequences experienced by the vandals and the limited collateral damage. However, where blocking would not feasibly prevent vandalism, such as where there are a number of vandals (or one vandal switching IPs) repeatedly targeting a page, I recognise the need to protect the page to ensure the integrity of the encyclopedia, if at the potential loss of constructive edits by editors collaterally affected. ✅✅ good explanation of what they are and good personal opinion, I agree with you.--Chip123456 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Where do we report vandals to? (1)
 * Editors responsible for obvious vandalism or spam are reported to Administrator intervention against vandalism if they continue to vandalise after a final warning. ✅--Chip123456 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) What causes one to believe an account is being used for vandalism only? (1)
 * A contributions log containing multiple unconstructive edits and no "real" constructive contributions is indicative of a vandalism-only account.✅--Chip123456 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) In what circumstances is an 'Only warning' used? Why? (2)
 * An only warning ({{subst:uw-vandalism4im}}) is used "in the case of excessive or continuous disruption from a user or specific IP". It is only used in such limited circumstances because it assumes bad faith, contrary to the policy to assume good faith, and provides no second chance for the editor. ✅✅--Chip123456 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Where do we ask for pages to be protected? (1)
 * Requests for pages to be protected are made at Requests for page protection. ✅--Chip123456 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Why do we deny trolls and vandals? (2)
 * Persistent trolls and vandals are most commonly motivated by a desire for attention (The Motivation of a Vandal). Denying vandals recognition, most frequently by  reverting, blocking and ignoring them, ensures that they are not encouraged to continue to vandalise – they are unable to provoke responses or have a lasting effect on Wikipedia, thus rendering their actions unfulfilling if, as is likely, they are motivated by a desire for attention. ✅✅--Chip123456 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) A user has just been unblocked and has continued to vandalise, what do you do? (2)
 * If a user had just been unblocked and continued to vandalise, I would identify and revert the vandalism and add a final warning ({{subst:uw-vandalism4im}}) to the user's talk page for "continuous disruption from a user or specific IP". If they were to continue to vandalise after this final warning, I would report them to Administrator intervention against vandalism (User:Chip123456/CVUA). Even assuming good faith it is not possible to construe such persistent vandalism as anything other than malicious. Moreover, I would issue a final warning immediately even to an IP in these circumstances; the slim chance that this might be a new user is outweighed by the need to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. ✅✅--Chip123456 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Usually, how long is a vandal-only account blocked for? (1)
 * Vandalism-only accounts are typically blocked indefinitely. ✅Too right they are ;)--Chip123456 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Does WP:3RR apply when reverting vandalism? (1)
 * The three-revert rule does not apply when "reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language"; it is specifically exempted from the editing policy. ✅--Chip123456 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Please describe the 4 steps of Counter-Vandalism (2)
 * There are four steps of counter-vandalism (Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Instruction methods).
 * Identification
 * Firstly, vandalism is found, typically by looking through the list of recent changes, and identified as vandalism in accordance with the  technical definition of the term.
 * Restoration
 * Secondly, the vandalism is removed from the article. It may be sufficient to undo the last revision, but there can be multiple unconstructive edits present, some of which may have been missed by other editors reverting vandalism; all unconstructive edits should ultimately be undone (Help:Reverting).
 * Warning
 * Thirdly, the editors responsible for the vandalism are warned about their behaviour on their talk page, almost always using the vandalism user warning templates. The warnings should be escalated for persistent vandalism and may carry on from previous warnings if they were given sufficiently recently.
 * Reporting
 * Fourthly, if an editor has been sufficiently warned, given a final warning and continues to vandalise, they are reported to Administrator intervention against vandalism. Alternatively, if a specific page is being repeatedly vandalised by a number of users, the page is reported to Requests for page protection. ✅✅ Great!--Chip123456 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Please describe the process of reporting an IP at WP:AIV (2)
 * 2) The IP is sufficiently warned about vandalising Wikipedia. The warnings are sufficiently recent that the likelihood of the IP making further unconstructive edits can be demonstrated, even  assuming good faith.
 * 3) A final warning is issued and the IP vandalises after being given time to read this warning.
 * 4) The IP is reported by adding   to the bottom of the  user-reported section of WP:AIV.
 * 5) An administrator evaluates the block request and if the IP has received and ignored sufficient recent warnings, the IP is blocked (although  almost never indefinitely).
 * (Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism)
 * 1) Please tell us 3 things you have learnt during the academy (3)
 * I have learnt:
 * the technical definitions of vandalism and its binary opposite, a  good faith edit;
 * the difficulties of responding to IP edits and the extent to which good faith plays a part in determining the appropriate warning level; and
 * that there are many legitimate reasons for blanking page content – the deleted content and edit history should therefore be carefully checked before warning the editor. ✅✅✅--Chip123456 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) What things will you take forward in your future vandalism work? (2)
 * I have adopted the following principles from the CVUA.
 * I will provide all relevant diffs when reporting to WP:AIV and WP:RPP (I have already started to do so in a recent report to WP:RPP).
 * I will assume good faith only so far as is reasonable; the principle is easily overturned in the face of blatant and repeated vandalism.
 * I will use my list of reasons why I'm not stressed about vandalism to keep me calm and walk away from editing should I ever feel unable to rationally edit Wikipedia. ✅✅--Chip123456 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The test will be marked, the marks available for each question are placed in the brackets. The test is out of 26. To pass, a score of around 20 is generally excpected.

✅Excellent, outstanding, even. With full marks across the board, it's easy to say that you clearly understand the syllabus you have learnt. It shows that you know how to identify vandalism, revert it, warn and report the users. --Chip123456 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

END OF TEST

Feedback (optional)
So we can improve at the acadmey, your feedback on what we do will be appreciated on how we can improve.


 * How useful did you find the academy on a scale of 0 to ten, why?


 * How was your instructor at the academy?


 * What things do you think can be improved?


 * What do we do well at the academy?


 * Would you recommend the academy system to fellow editors? Why or why not?


 * Any additional comments?

Thanks for answering the feedback, an instructor will shortly look into it and place comments on the talk for things to be improved.