User:Mz7/CVUA/ANode

Hello ANode, 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

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.


 * I have enabled Twinkle a few months back, and I'm familiar with its uses (AGF revert, vandalism reverts). Definitely a lot stronger than typical undo. aNode   (discuss)  06:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Excellent. Mz7 (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2018 (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. 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.

Good faith edits are edits made by people who think that what they're changing are correct (based on their perception) while having no bad intention to damage the encyclopedia, while vandalism edits are intentionally made by editors who know the changes they're going to make are wrong, yet decide to commit to it. Most edits can be taken as good-faith changes except for the obvious defacing or blanking of a page, where vandalism is to be assumed immediately.
 * Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
 * ✅ Good! The key here is the intention of the user. Oftentimes when looking at changes made by others, we find some changes we think are unhelpful, but it is important to be able to tell whether the user intended to cause harm, or whether they made unhelpful changes unwittingly. We don't want to scare off well-meaning new contributors with hostility, which a false accusation of vandalism would be. This is why on Wikipedia, if you are ever in doubt as to whether someone intends to help or harm Wikipedia, the guideline is to assume good faith and assume that the user is here to help. Mz7 (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

1) Adding that a certain artist is "gay" into their page may seem like obvious vandalism at first, but in reality that editor might believe what he's adding in is true and felt like the page may be more accurate after his changes. 2) Blanking a whole page to put in their personal opinion on a certain topic 3) Changing the details of sourced information on one's page (a source verifies that the person is born in India, but an editor changes that location to the UK)
 * Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. You don't need to revert the example you find, and I am happy for you to use previous undos in your edit history if you wish.
 * Good faith

1) Unexplained page blanking 2) Adding a string of random letters to a page (Example: John Martin was born in Jwehewhhwehkweyhroiwer, United States at...) 3) Silently manipulating a text to input false information (the case with Legolas2186, adding in fake references to verify his original research)
 * Vandalism


 * Apologies for the delay in responding. For this question, do you think you could provide links to diffs of each change? A diff is a page like this one that shows you the change that a user made. Copy the URLs of your example diffs and paste them here. Mz7 (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure! For good faith, 1, last line in the lead. 2, 3, added unsourced nickname to infobox artist name. For vandalism, 1, 2 For number 2, apparently vandalism has gotten a lot more creative than I thought, so it was a little hard to find blatant text spam. This was the best I could find. 3, the case on the false reference was discussed here. aNode   (discuss)  05:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good work. I actually think you might be a little too conservative – your first example of good faith editing is most likely vandalism: someone who directly calls a living subject a "douchebag" is probably not someone who is here to build an encyclopedia. Even if it's something like "gay" – if the subject's sexuality is clear and has never been credibly challenged, I don't think someone who adds that someone is "gay" actually intends to help. I'm not familiar with the case of Legolas2186, but given that he was blocked for this behavior, I'll take your word for it. I've posted your next assignment below. Mz7 (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that "unexplained page blanking" is not necessarily vandalism – it depends on the context and the kind of material removed. If the content that was removed was unsourced, for example, I generally like to assume that the removal was done on the basis that it was unsourced. Mz7 (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I guess you're right, the intention behind those name-calling edits are definitely bad and are probably attempts to verbally attack the person. I'll keep that in mind now! You're right too about the wideness of "unexplained page blanking", it can stretch towards both sides of helpful and unhelpful editing. Maybe a more specific way to phrase that term would be "unexplained page blanking of reliably sourced material", where a good cited section is removed for no given acceptable reason. And for the Legolas2186 case, it was covered pretty extensively by the media a few years back, here's a link on it! Pretty interesting read for me. I'll get started on the next section when I get back from class today. aNode   (discuss)  00:06, 8 June 2018 (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.

To notify them that their edits and actions are not appropriate, and to give advice on how to correct their editing behaviour. Warning someone is definitely more fair than blocking them straight away after they continuously carry out wrongful edits.
 * Please answer the following questions:
 * Why do we warn users?
 * ✅ Good. Oftentimes, people who are new to the concept of Wikipedia vandalize unwittingly, asking, "Can I really edit this?" and submit a silly change, unaware that the change is published immediately. Warnings give us the opportunity to educate these users on how Wikipedia works, encouraging them to submit constructive changes. If the user does not heed the warning, then we gradually increase our tone, informing them that blocks can occur if they continue, up to a final warning, after which the user will be blocked if they vandalize again. Mz7 (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It would be appropriate when a user has performed significantly bad-faith edits over a period of time, such as continuous disruptive editing or straightforward vandalism, even after being having their edits reverted by others.
 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
 * You're partially correct. If a vandal has managed to make many rapid edits to a range of articles in a short period of time, then a 4im warning might be appropriate to curtail the problem as soon as possible. Another possibility is when a vandal is being particularly egregious; perhaps they are inserting libelous content into an article about a living person. A 4im warning is a single, final warning that we give immediately, i.e. without giving any other warnings to the user. E.g. uw-vandalism4im. Mz7 (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, so that I can add in any extra relevant info other than the template's main text. Perhaps, the page vandalised by the user, or perhaps to add the name of the user in. Essentially, it allows flexible manipulation of the template's content, while still allowing the main point to go through. I can subsitute by inputting "subst:" to the front of the template, which will change it from let's say to.
 * Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?
 * Good, you know how to correctly substitute templates (Twinkle can also do it for you via the "Warn" function). The main reason why we substitute, however, is because the alternative, transclusion, makes it so that if you edit the text of the warning template, it will also be updated on every user talk page that transcludes the warning template. This is problematic because if we say something, we typically don't want to have the record reflect us saying something we didn't actually say. Mz7 (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I will report them to the Vandalism ANI page for action to be taken against them by administrators, hopefully an indefinite block.
 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * ✅ Administrators will typically block user accounts indefinitely if they are only being used for vandalism, but we very rarely protect IP addresses indefinitely because they are oftentimes shared among multiple users, so the same IP may later shift onto someone who is innocent, which is why we usually set expiration dates. Mz7 (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

✅ Great! Mz7 (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2018 (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.
 * is to be used for obvious vandalism, such as adding insults to a page or unhelpful comments (eg. Wikipedia is lame).
 * Blanking of a reliably sourced section without giving any acceptable reason
 * Adding unhelpful or potentially unsafe links to a page, typically around the external links section or hidden in a ref. aNode   (discuss)  14:30, 10 June 2018 (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.


 * I am so sorry about the delay here. I was swept up in nominating a user to WP:RFA, and then I just recently moved into a new apartment in real life, so CVUA was not on my mind. In the future, don't hesitate to ping me when you respond to each assignment, and if I don't seem to notice your responses right away, feel free to poke me about it on my user talk page. I've left some feedback above and posted your next assignment below. As always, please let me know if you have any questions or if you are confused by anything. I would be happy to clarify. Mz7 (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed feedback on my answers! I definitely learnt a lot, since I was initially very unsure about substitution and the existence of 4im warnings. But of course, I must insist you prioritize admin matters and real life first before this CVUA, your priorities are definitely understandable ;) Hoping that your move to the new apartment went smoothly and that it'll be an enjoyable stay there! I'll take a look at the next task and attempt to complete it soon. aNode   (discuss)  06:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Finding and reverting vandalism
This next section is a bit more hands-on. In the past, my students have tended to spend more time on it than the past few assignments I've given you, since it isn't a Q&A format. Take your time, and let me know if you run into any issues.


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


 * Hello, I'm halfway through now! Is my progress alright so far? I haven't found any remarkably bad vandalism cases yet other than the Downball case, so only one AIV report has been made as of today. aNode   (discuss)  15:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi ANode. Good work so far! In the past, I've been willing to waive the two WP:AIV reports requirement since they aren't that common, I suppose. The more important thing is correctly distinguishing between vandalism and not vandalism. Mz7 (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Table completed! I hope everything's alright. aNode   (discuss)  16:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Great work! I've left feedback above. Overall, no glaring issues. Well done! Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2018 (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.

When a page is frequently vandalised by IPS, new users, or sockpuppet accounts. Typically BLP pages with its subject having performed controversial actions will have their pages vandalised by users, thus semi-protection will work in that case to circumvent the issue.
 * In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
 * ✅ Right, the key is frequency and multiplicity. In order to justify semi-protection, the vandalism should be persistent and from multiple users, such that the disruption can't be easily prevented by blocks alone. If there are only a handful of isolated instances every other month, administrators will rarely apply protection. Mz7 (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It should be PC protected when it encounters persistent vandalism (but otherwise has a low edit rate from proper editors), BLP issues, or copyright disputes. It can also be applied for pages having significant, but temporary vandalism (such as the John Tarode page, whose comment on making "crispy" rendang has gained massive backlash from the media, prompting users to consistently vandalise the page for a month, until the issue has died down).
 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?
 * ✅ Good, the key is that there should be a low rate of editing. If an article is being heavily vandalized (e.g. perhaps it's in the news), then semi-protection is probably the better option. Personally, I find the greatest use for pending changes on BLP articles. BLPs really do have the ability to affect the lives of their subjects, so it is absolutely critical that the article remains in its best possible state. If the editing rate isn't high enough to justify semi-protection, but there is a clear pattern of persistent vandalism, that's when PC would be best. Did you misspell "John Tarode" there? Mz7 (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoops, you're right! The page was supposed to be John Torode. So much vandalism there previously... aNode   (discuss)  07:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A page should be temporarily fully protected to end a significantly harsh ongoing edit war which involves multiple parties, or when it encounters vandalism at a very high level from all types of users (IPs, new accounts, extended confirmed users). For vandalism-wise issues, the full page protection needs to last for as short a time period as possible, to continue allowing productive editors to continue editing.
 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * ✅ Yep, stopping an edit war is the most common justification for full protection, but we do also see on rare occasions full protection in response to vandalism or BLP policy violations. Nowadays we also have extended-confirmed protection which is like an intermediate between semi-protection and full protection. Mz7 (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

When a AFDed page is constantly recreated by other users, even after they're warned repeatedly.
 * In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
 * It doesn't necessarily have to be a page that was deleted at WP:AFD. It could be a repeatedly recreated page that persistently meets the criteria for speedy deletion, for example. Mz7 (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

These pages are rarely protected, and are only protected when it encounters very heavy vandalism from IP users. A request by a user to have their low-activity talk pages protected will normally not be entertained.
 * In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
 * ✅ Correct. Mz7 (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.
 * Pending at Porter Robinson here, request made here.
 * ✅ Nice! Mz7 (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.

After failing a deletion discussion (in which the consensus is to delete the page), the page should be speedily deleted without going through any criteria. (I assume this is what the question's asking, I'm not really sure)
 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?
 * Ah, shoot. The intent of "very briefly no need to go through the criteria" was to have you keep your answer to this question brief, without the need to spend your time listing through all of the criteria. Pages can be speedily deleted if they meet any one of the criteria for speedy deletion; these are cases in which an issue is so clear that it justifies immediate removal, without the need for discussion. These are cases like vandalism, copyright violations, blatant advertising. Mz7 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, noted! So speedy deltion can be done for very obvious rule-breaking pages, noted.


 * Below are a set of questions that are intended to help you get to know the speedy deletion criteria. They will present you with example scenarios, and your task will be to identify which criteria for speedy deletion, if any, apply in that scenario.

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. Delete under criteria A1 for absence of context, seeing that the "article" is very short and is unsourced too. It can go under A7 too, seeing "John Smith" is a non-notable person.
 * Scenario 1
 * I would say either WP:G3 (vandalism) or WP:G10 (attack page) are the best criteria for this kind of article. A7 could also apply technically, but based on the content, it seems to be a clear attempt to attack or disparage a living person. These kinds of wholly unsourced articles are textbook G10. A1 is more for cases where it is not clear what an article is even talking about. In this case, we have enough context to determine that John Smith is an elementary schooler; I might see a valid argument for A1 if there is no one elementary schooler named John Smith that can be found via Google, but in this case, I think G3 or G10 is the better call. Mz7 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're definitely right about this being an attack page, an unsourced page, but has the intention to attack regardless.

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. Delete under criteria G11 for straightforward promotion. Text is unsourced and is not notable.
 * Scenario 2
 * ✅ Yep. Nowadays we don't see these kinds of articles created directly in mainspace anymore due to WP:ACPERM. Instead, you'll see them a lot on user pages. To find them, try setting Special:NewPagesFeed to give you new user pages from new editors. The log of filter 499 is also super helpful in identifying spam user pages. Mz7 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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. Delete under criteria A7, for lack of notablity and importance. Page is unsourced too. Attaching tag for Db-person.
 * Scenario 3
 * Keep in mind that A7 does not concern itself with notability; the only thing that is sufficient to avoid A7 speedy deletion is a "credible claim of significance". What is a credible claim of significance? This is why A7 is probably the most subjective (and therefore controversial) of the speedy deletion criteria. Different admins might look at the same claims, and one might call it a "credible claim of signficance". However, we do have an essay that a good number of admins cite and refer to: Credible claim of significance. In general, you should think of "credible claim of significance" as a lower standard than notability, and it need not be sourced (though sources can help in establishing the credibility of a significance claim, and quality of sources can be a credible claim of significance in itself). Mz7 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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. Since my creativity sucks, I've borrowed his example here.) Delete under A1 for lack of context, I have no idea what's the text saying. It is probably invented, so the article can go under A11 too.
 * Scenario 4
 * I think the key for this question is that your first instinct should be to do a Google search of some keywords of the article content to see if there's anything salvageable before nominating for deletion. In this case, if you look up "Bazz Ward roadie Lemmy" you get back The Nice, which mentions that a man named Bazz Ward, along with Lemmy, was a "roadie" for the band in 1967. If you can manage to realize this, then cleaning up the article yourself would be preferable than tagging it for speedy deletion (plus, A1/A11 wouldn't apply anymore since you know what the subject is now). This is not something that is immediately obvious, however, and the content is certainly poorly written. Additionally, many of the other examples I'm providing for this section are really contrived, so I do not fault you for not looking up Bazz Ward beforehand. I definitely wouldn't put speedy deletion out of the question here. Mz7 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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. Delete under G12 for copyrighted material, seeing there's no free licensing for the text too.
 * Scenario 5
 * ✅ G12 is correct. Mz7 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language. If the page is sourced and appears to be notable, it should be tagged for being not in English with Not English, which will add it to the WP:PNT list. However if it already exists on another Wikimedia region, it can be deleted under A2.
 * Scenario 6
 * ✅ Nice! It should only be speedily deleted if it already exists in the language of Wikipedia that it is written in. Mz7 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content. Delete under A3 for having no content.
 * Scenario 7
 * In order for an article to qualify for speedy deletion, all prior revisions of a page must meet the criteria for speedy deletion; if there is a revision that does not satisfy any criterion, then we should revert the article to that revision instead of deleting. Take a look at the criteria for speedy deletion again: can you find one that talks about editors blanking pages that they created? Mz7 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I found it! G7 states that pages blanked by their authors can be taken as a deletion request. But as mentioned, this only applies if the page also fulfils the criteria for speedy deletion, so a well sourced notable page which was blanked should not be speedily deleted. aNode   (discuss)  08:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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? Seeing that it was created in a user page as a "test page", speedy deletion guidelines don't apply. Howecer if this page is created in the mainspace, delete it under criteria G1 for patent nonsense.
 * Scenario 8
 * ✅ Good. We allow a lot of latitude for what is allowed on user pages, as long as it meets our user page guidelines, which is why G1 and G2 don't apply to the user namespace. If this were created in a different namespace, G1 or G2 would be valid criteria. Mz7 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm done :) aNode   (discuss)  05:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your next stuff is below. (Sorry about the delay!) The "Tools" section is just some reading – let me know if you have questions about any of it. There are a few conceptual username questions below that. Mz7 (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Tools
Recent changes patrol includes a list of tools and resources for those who want to fight vandalism with a more systematic and efficient approach. In addition to manually going through Special:RecentChanges, there are a large number of tool which assist users in the fight against vandalism. They range from tools which help filter and detect vandalism to tools which will revert, warn and report users. Here are a few.

Twinkle
Twinkle, as you know, is very useful. It provides three types of rollback functions (vandalism, normal and AGF) as well as an easy previous version restore function (for when there are a number of different editors vandalising in a row). Other functions include a full library of speedy deletion functions, and user warnings. It also has a function to propose and nominate pages for deletion, to request page protection to report users to WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:SPI, and other administrative noticeboards.

User creation log
In my early days of fighting vandalism on Wikipedia, one of the strategies I would use to find vandalism was to patrol the account creation log. This is located at Special:Log/newusers, and it logs every time a new user account is created on Wikipedia. You'll notice that new accounts with no contributions so far will have a red "contribs" links, whereas new accounts with some contributions will have blue "contribs" links. One great way not only to find vandalism, but welcome new users to Wikipedia is to check the blue contribs links that come in.

STiki
STiki is an application that you download to your computer, and it provides you with diffs which either it or User:ClueBot NG have scored on their possibility of being uncontructive, and you are given the option to revert it as vandalism, revert it assuming good faith, mark it as innocent, or abstain from making a judgment on the diff. In order to use STiki, you need one of the following: (1) the rollback permission, (2) at least 1000 article edits (in the article namespace, not talk/user pages), or (3) special permission via Wikipedia talk:STiki.

Huggle
Huggle is also an application you download to your computer which presents you diffs (orders them on the likelihood of being unconstructive edits and on the editor's recent history) from users not on its whitelist. It allows you to revert vandalism, warn and reports users in one click. The rollback permission is required to use Huggle.


 * May I ask, does STiki have any benefits against Huggle (I've only seen users requesting for Huggle usage on the Rollbackers permission request page), and if there are, what are those? aNode   (discuss)  04:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * STiki is simpler than Huggle, I think. If you don't like cluttered user interfaces, you might like STiki because you're really only given three buttons: "vandalism", "good faith revert", "innocent". There is also a fourth button called "pass", which passes the classification onto another STiki user (your labeling trains some learning algorithm to better identify vandalism, so if you're not sure, use this option to avoid mistraining the algorithm). STiki can also catch some of the more subtle vandalism that might pass by undetected for some time, whereas Huggle is pretty much only useful for reverting obvious vandalism that you can revert instantly. Huggle, on the other hand, gives you a wider range of revert options: you can revert as vandalism, NPOV violation, BLP violation, addition of unsourced content, page blanking, factual errors, etc., and it will automatically fill in your reverting edit summary and warn the user with the appropriate warning template. Mz7 (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Usernames
Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol the User creation log to check for new users with inappropriate usernames. There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed: Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particluar attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.
 * Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, usernames that impersonate other people, or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
 * Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.
 * Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
 * Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.
 * Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).

Seems to be a normal username of a editor's real name, policies at WP:REALNAME. Might be prone to impersonation though.
 * DJohnson
 * ✅ Good. If the user claims to be a famous, real person, such as Dwayne Johnson, then we may consider blocking the user and asking that they send verification of their identity to OTRS. Mz7 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Breaching WP:ORGNAME for promotional purposes.
 * LMedicalCentre
 * ✅ Depends on their edits, of course, but if they are representing a group, then we will have to ask that they use a different username. Mz7 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I misread that as an offensive username at first, "dik?" It can easily be misintepreted as disruptive, so tag it under WP:DISRUPTNAME.
 * Fuqudik
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Breaching WP:ISU for shared use. It would be allowed if it was "user" from ColesStaff, but username represents the whole company thus it should be blocked.
 * ColesStaff
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Breaching WP:ATTACKNAME for attacking Bieber, who's definitely not gay ;)
 * Bieberisgay
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Breaching WP:NOEMOJI with non-scripted text featuring emojis. Not all phones can view emojis, so the username would appear blank on their phones which should we avoided.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Done! aNode  (discuss)  05:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good work! Next assignment below. After this, I think you can apply for rollback. Mz7 (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Scenario 1
You encounter an IP vandalising Justin Bieber by adding in statements that he is gay.
 * Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?
 * This would be considered vandalism, seeing that it is a statement to attack the artist involved made in bad faith to misinform the public, especially if it's factually incorrect.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?
 * Breaching WP:BLP for adding unsourced and potentially malicious content, and under WP:VANDTYPES it would fall closer to silly vandalism, although this specific case is not covered there.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?
 * If the statement added is quite tame, put uw-vandalism1. But if the statement appears to be quite malicious sounding, put in uw-vandalism2.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * Yes, I can still be blocked for edit warring regardless if I'm reverting vandalism or not. I should have continuously added warning templates to the IP editor, and upon reaching uw-vandalism4 (which after placing I would have reverted for the third time already), report the IP to ANI for persistent vandalism.
 * If you are reverting obvious vandalism, such as clearly false statements that Justin Bieber, a famous person, is gay, then you may revert the vandalism as many times as needed. It is one of the exemptions to the three-revert rule. See WP:3RRNO for more information. Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?
 * Since the user is not registered and is using an IP address, use IPvandal.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
 * The reason would be: persistent vandalism of Justin Bieber page even after being continously warned (reached level 4). Ignores warning and continues to use profanity.
 * ✅ "vandalism after final warning" is the usual verbiage, I believe. Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (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?
 * It would be considered a good faith edit, likely a test edit on the unfortunate page seeing he's a new user.
 * ✅ Good. A common thing is people insert gibberish articles to see whether Wikipedia truly is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", unaware that their edits are immediately visible to everyone around the world. This should not be treated the same as someone who deliberately wants to harm Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?
 * Place uw-test1 on his talk page for edit testing, encouraging him to use the sandbox.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?
 * Use the Green option for AGF, seeing that the edit wasn't done in bad faith.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (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?
 * Yes, stacking on test edits and ignoring the warnings still count as vandalism, so a fourth vandal edit would warrant for a uw-vandalism4 warning. Report the user only after he makes one more vandal edit.
 * ✅ Good, adding a 4th warning is the most common practice. Some admins will be willing to block before four warnings if the vandalism is egregious. Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?
 * Blocks will usually be temporary (24 hrs, 72 hrs, exponential increase), but if the user continues to vandalise even after these temporary blocks he will be blocked indef.
 * If it is a registered account that is being used only for vandalism, then we would usually block the account indefinitely, even if they have never been blocked before. For IP addresses, this is different because multiple users can share the same IP address. Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?
 * Account is registered, so use vandal.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
 * User persistently making test and vandal edits, ignoring warnings given by other editors.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (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, if so which Twinkle option would you use?
 * Yes, it should be reverted seeing that the link does not contribute to the Laptop page. I'll use the Blue rollback button and give my reasonings to revert the edit (non-notable link and company).
 * ✅ The relevant guideline here is WP:EL. Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If you do revert which warning template would you use?
 * I'll use the Uw-advert1 template, since the edit was used to promote the website.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (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'll tag it under G11 for obvious promotion, or G12 since the text is copied and paste from the website, breaking WP:COPYPASTE policies.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?
 * Put a Uw-coi-username template on the user page, since the name represents the company. I don't think there's a parameter for this warning (single warning).
 * Typically you either warn the user about their username or you report the username, but not both. There's a parameter for listing the article involved, in this case "Laptops Inc". Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?
 * Yes, I'll report this user for breaking WP:CORPNAME policies for using a username representing a company as a whole.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm done! Hope I answered these questions correctly! aNode   (discuss)  08:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've left some feedback above. Let me know if you have questions, or if you're ready to move on! Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahh, now I understand the exceptions for 3RR! But just to clarify, if it's a registered account whose edits are mostly vandalism, it can be banned indef? Other than that I'm clear to go! aNode   (discuss)  07:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it is a registered account that has solely been vandalizing Wikipedia, and it's pretty clear that the account serves no other purpose, then it can be blocked indefinitely—see WP:VOA. As a side note, I think it's important to be a little more precise about terminology here. On Wikipedia there is a difference between the words "block" and "ban". Mz7 (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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

It should be used for obvious vandalism only, to revert changes made to our own user pages, to revert accidental self-made edits, to revert edits made by blocked users with an attached edit summary, or to revert widespread unhelpful edits (by misguided user or bot) with sufficient explanation at the article's talk page.
 * Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.

It shouldn't be used for reverting good-faith edits, Twinkle or undo can do that instead. It shouldn't be used for edit warring too.

I should undo or revert the accidental edit I made throught the page's history section. It may be accompanied with a "revert accidental rollback edit" edit summary.
 * Hopefully this will never happen, but it does occasionally. If you accidentally use rollback, what should you do?

Yes, I can still use rollback together with an edit summary if it does make my task easier, provided I use a tool which allows me to do that. (Huggle, STiki, add &summary= to the end of the rollback link together with the edit summary, etc.)
 * Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?

Me done! aNode  (discuss)  07:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I think you're ready for rollback. If you wish to receive the permission, go to Requests for permissions/Rollback and leave a request. Although I am an administrator, I've adopted a practice of considering myself WP:INVOLVED with respect to my CVUA students, and in general I would prefer that another admin check over my work here. I will probably leave an endorsement of your request though. Mz7 (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Monitoring period
Congratulations! You have completed the main 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 7-day monitoring period. During this time, you are free to revert vandalism (and edit Wikipedia) as you normally do; I will monitor your progress in anti-vandalism. If there are any issues, I will raise them with you and if you have any problems, you are free to ask me. After seven 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. Mz7 (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * STiki is pretty solid and very enjoyable to use for combating vandalism, but it seems always crash whenever I try good-faith reverting (Keeps giving me a WMF session dropped error). Have you ever had this issue before though? aNode   (discuss)  14:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure what's going on. Have you tried posting at Wikipedia talk:STiki? Mz7 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I will soon, thanks for the suggestion! aNode   (discuss)  04:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users
So, I was looking through the syllabus, and it looks like there was a section that I inexplicably skipped for you. My fault for forgetting about it, so this is completely optional. If you're interested, here it is. Mz7 (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Mz7 (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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?
 * By recognising and covering vandalism, it will encourage users to imimate that behaviour for their own amusement or authority-defying purposes. Users that troll or vandalise seek attention and want their names to be known by other people, thus we have to prevent that from happening by denying recognition of their edits.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?
 * A good faith user will genuinely attempt to know what they did wrong with their edits, and try to fix their issues in the future so it wouldn't be reverted. Their style of communication will probably be polite too. A troll will do or say whatever it takes to get a reaction out of me, by either WP:HOUNDING or passing out threats during discussions. Alas, it's best to ignore these people if a positive outcome is not to be expected and report them to ANI for action to be taken.
 * So, be careful about using politeness as an indicator of good faith. On Wikipedia, when you revert someone else's edits, that editor might get understandably frustrated. Maybe they spent a long time figuring out how to submit those edits, and now you have gone and let that time go to waste. What gives?! If an editor is rude to you, that does not necessarily mean they are a troll. Instead, I think the way to tell goes back to the kind of edits they were submitting. If the edits were good-faith edits that happened to be unhelpful, then it's probably a good-faith user who is mad at you for reverting. You should respond to this user (though if you think they are attacking you personally and you feel uncomfortable, feel free to reach out to an administrator). On the other hand, if the edits were clearly an attempt to insert false or inappropriate information into an article, then we can probably assume the editor is a troll and is not worth responding to. Use your judgment. Mz7 (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thats trueee, we have to see it from their point of view first to judge if they genuinely have the intention to help improve their articles of focus. Proper communication and policy guidance should be key for this. I'll use my judgement as well as I can for future cases! aNode   (discuss)  15:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

-
 * I'm done! Hope my vandalism fighting edits recently were good and that I've answered these questions well. aNode   (discuss)  05:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So sorry for the delay! Been caught up with some other stuff around the wiki. I'll probably post your final exam later today, after which you'll have graduated from this thing! Mz7 (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice, can't wait! aNode   (discuss)  11:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Final exam posted below! Let me know if something doesn't seem right to you, or if you have any questions! Mz7 (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Final Exam
When responding to numbered questions please start your response with "#:" (except where shown otherwise - with **). You don't need to worry about signing your answers.

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (25%)

 * For each of these examples, please state whether you would call the edit(s) described as vandalism or good faith edit, a reason for that, and how you would deal with the situation (ensuring you answer the questions where applicable).
 * 1) A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article. What would you do if it was their first warning? What about after that?
 * Apparent good-faith test edit. Since it's their first warning, I'll leave a general note using Twinkle on their talk page advising them not to leave test edits on the Wiki. If it happens again, it'll increase to a Level 2 warning.
 * ✅ Excellent. My view is that most random gibberish instances on Wikipedia are probably test edits – people inserting random things just to test whether they can actually change pages and have their edits visible around the world immediately. Mz7 (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds their signature to an article after one being given a Uw-articlesig warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?
 * I'll still take it as good faith, perhaps the user didn't see the initial warning. Regardless, I'll leave a message on the user's talk page attempting to explain that there's no need to sign their edits. Eventually if the edits continue, it'll be treated as distruptive editing/vandalism, so it'll have to be taken up to AIV.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Seems to be a harmless good-faith statement by a user who's experimenting on Wiki. I'll revert the edit leaving a uw-vandalism1 warning, but if it repeats it'll be counted as vandalism. I'll continue increasing the warnings until it reaches level 4, then report him to AIV.
 * ✅ You're probably a bit more conservative than I would be (which is not necessarily a bad thing!). To me, "John Smith is the best!" in an article that has nothing to do with any John Smiths is probably vandalism. Mz7 (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
 * Same as above, good-faith but unhelpful edit. Revert him and warn first time for uw-vandalism1, then continue to increase the warnings until an AIV report.
 * ✅ This is very likely a test edit (maybe use uw-test1 instead). Mz7 (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 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 should immediately be taken as vandalism under removal of sourced content without consensus or explanation, uw-delete1. Regardless of the user's edit history, all users should be treated the same if they remove sourced content (perhaps if the user has previously contributed positively, he might have a proper reason for removing the content. Discuss with him on the article's talk page to gain consensus and explanations).
 * Removal of sourced content without consensus or explanation is not always vandalism. Indeed, a user could genuinely believe that the information is incorrect and that by removing it, they are benefiting the project. Especially since there is an edit summary being left here claiming that the removed information is wrong, the first instinct should be to check the source to determine whether the user's claim is valid. Is the cited source reliable? Does it truly verify the content being removed? Even if it does, what do you think the intentions of the user are? My instinct would be to assume good faith unless there is obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. removing that the Earth is round with the summary "this is wrong"). Mz7 (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Part 2 (15%)

 * Which templates warning would give an editor in the following scenarios. If you don't believe a template warning is appropriate outline the steps (for example what you would say) you would take instead.
 * 1) A user blanks Cheesecake.
 * subst:uw-blank1
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
 * subst:uw-attempt2
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
 * subst:uw-efsummary
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
 * subst:uw-vandalism1
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
 * subst:uw-blank1 or subst:uw-delete1
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
 * subst:uw-test1
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
 * subst:uw-vandalism1
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
 * subst:uw-biog1
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
 * Since there are no previous warnings and he has repeated this for more than four times, place the highest warning which is subst:uw-delete3. IF user continues to blank again, report to AIV.
 * Technically, the highest warning possible is {{subst:uw-delete4im}}, the level 4-immediate warning. Mz7 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
 * Report to AIV for ignoring all prior warnings.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 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).
 * subst:uw-upv
 * ✅ Depending on the specific circumstances, this could also be harassment. Talk to an administrator if you feel uncomfortable. Mz7 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * subst:uw-image1
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Part 3 (10%)

 * What CSD tag you would put on the following articles (The content below is the article's content).
 * 1) Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
 * Db-promo, G11 for promotional content.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
 * Db-person, A7 for non-importance people (article doesn't seem to be sourced with anything which proves that "Josh Marcus" is really the coolest kid in London).
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
 * Db-event, A7 for non important event. No idea who Joe is and why does his visit to England matter.
 * ✅ db-a1 for no context, db-g2 for test edits, and db-person could work as well. Mz7 (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
 * Db-invented, A11 for obvious invention. An online search shows no hits for a "smadoodle" so it's definitely a fake.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Fuck Wiki!
 * Db-attack, G10 for page attacking Wikipedia.
 * db-attack is more appropriate when there is a specific, identifiable individual being threatened. This is just a generic profanity against a general concept – it's a subtle distinction, but I wouldn't call this an attack page in Wikipedia's definition of the term. I would use db-g3 instead. Mz7 (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

What would you do in the following circumstance:
 * A user blanks a page they very recently created.
 * Check if the page was well sourced and is notable enough to stay in Wikipedia. If it is, revert it back to its previous state. If not, tag it under Db-blanked.
 * In general, I think English Wikipedia administrators are very liberal with applying WP:G7 on pages regardless of how well sourced or notable they are. If the page creator wants it gone and no one else has edited it, then so be it. Mz7 (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
 * Restore the tag and warn the user for Db-blanked.
 * If this persists after the fourth warning, report the author on AIV for disruptive editing.
 * Well, I feel that a page creator may remove the db-blanked tag on pages they created; we could take this as a sign that they don't actually want the article deleted. This is a very rare situation (I've never encountered it before). I don't think it should immediately be treated as "disruptive editing" necessarily, but I would try to start a dialogue with the users as to what they want done with the article. When in doubt, leave a customized message on the user talk page; don't be afraid to write your own messages if no template message fits. Mz7 (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Part 4 (10%)

 * Are the following new (logged in) usernames violations of the username policy? Describe why or why not and what you would do about it (if they are a breach).
 * 1) TheMainStreetBand - Violates policy for shared promotional account usage, with the band titled "The Main Street" plus shared use between all their members. WP:ORGNAME and WP:ISU. Only allow if it specifies the exact member of the band, such as "Mark from TheMainStreetBand", but the account must not be used for promo purposes.
 * Remember to first look at the account's edits. If the edits are about a band called "The Main Street Band", that is something that we'd probably block right away as a promotional username. If not, then maybe we should start a dialogue with the user as to what their username refers to. Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Poopbubbles - Violates policy for offensive name, "poop". WP:DISRUPTNAME
 * ✅ My impression is that most UAA admins are agnostic about "poop" – it's within an admin's discretion to block, but I can also see an admin letting it slide... Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Brian's Bot - Violates policy for misleading surname, since name contains "bot" which is normally used to ID Wiki bot or script accounts. WP:MISLEADNAME
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj - Violates policy for confusing surname, WP:UNCONF.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Bobsysop - No violation, although name may be hard for others to type in when pinging. Fringing on WP:UNCONF.
 * The word  is another word to refer to Wikipedia administrators; this should probably be blocked per WP:MISLEADNAME if it is actively editing. Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 12:12, 23 June 2012 - Violates policy for confusing surname. WP:UNCONF. May be confused for times when editor signs their edits. (two times? which time and date is correct)
 * ✅ I don't think the wiki software that runs Wikipedia will allow usernames like this anymore, but if it's still possible, then you're right, this is confusing. Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) PMiller - No violation, name appears to be quite similar to a person's real name, but the "P" surpresses any attempt at identification. WP:REALNAME
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) OfficialJustinBieber - Violates policy for misleading and impersonating surname since it's a real name of a famous person (official makes it more obvious). WP:MISLEADNAME
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

For all of the violations above, first talk to the user on their talk page and encourage them to use a new name, or use the subst:uw-username template. For blatant and abusive violations needing immediate blocks, report the username to WP:UAA.

Part 5 (10%)

 * Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.
 * 1) Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
 * No, the WP:3RR rule does not apply for obvious vandalism (offensive language, page blanking). However for subtle vandalism, one has to give proper reasoning for calling those edits vandalism and prove that they actually are made in bad faith, perhaps on the article's talk page.
 * ✅ Good, obvious vandalism is exempted, but you should be very careful about more subtle vandalism that may not be clear to the admins that review your reverts. Mz7 (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
 * Report on WP:AIV, by posting the account together with a suitable reason stating where and how the user vandalised.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
 * Report on WP:ANI, and leave a detailed report of where and how the abuse was carried out.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
 * Report on WP:UAA, stating the exact policy violation of the name and where edits are made (normally on a specific area).
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
 * Report on WP:ANI if the attack escalates significantly, by how the attack occured and tagging the editor involved.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Where and how should an edit war be reported?
 * Report on WP:AN/3 if the edit war fails to cease, providing diffs of the edit war, warning given (if the editor is obvilious of the 3RR policy) and a diff showing an attempt to stop the edit war. Admin may fully protect the page or block the editors involved.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
 * Report on WP:ANI, by providing evidence of BLP violations and the user involved (constant re-adding of unsourced content, let's say).
 * WP:BLPN is probably the better venue, but if it is a chronic problem with a specific user, then WP:ANI it the way to go. Mz7 (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Part 6 - Theory in practice (30%)

 * 1. Find and revert three instances of vandalism (by different editors on different pages), and appropriately warn the editor. Please give the diffs the warning below.
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finland&diff=prev&oldid=858311085, apparent test edit. Reported user here, first sentence at the Sep 2018 section.
 * In most cases, I wouldn't consider test edits "vandalism". Mz7 (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johny_Johny_Yes_Papa&diff=prev&oldid=858034328, re-added improper meme content for humour purposes on the Johny Johny Yes Papa page. Removed and warned here.
 * Try to leave more descriptive edit summaries, since others reviewing your edits may not have all of the same information you do (I didn't realize there was a meme here). Mz7 (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * 2. Find and revert two good faith edits, and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Newson&diff=prev&oldid=858162583, unsourced BLP name change. Warned here.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hansika_Motwani&type=revision&diff=858312841&oldid=858307693, broke NPOV policies. Warned here.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * 3. Correctly report two users (either AIV or ANI). Give the diffs of your report below.
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=862642070, this one should count indirectly, I requested for semi-protection after this user vandalised the page pretty badly. My request was rejected, but an admin did ban the user!
 * Looks like blocking the user solved the problem. Keep in mind, on Wikipedia there's a difference between the words "ban" and "block" – see WP:BLOCKBANDIFF for more information. In this case, the user was blocked, but not banned. Mz7 (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


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


 * 5. Correctly nominate one articles for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nominations below.
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soleil_Chartered_Bank&type=revision&diff=858923091&oldid=858922211
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * 6. Correctly report one username as a breache of policy.
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AUsernames_for_administrator_attention&type=revision&diff=858921108&oldid=858917207, guy had "Dickwad2" as his name.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've had hard luck finding any pages to protect or users to report for the past few days, seeing that my watchlist patrol pages are pretty quiet. Is it alright if I leave those blank for now and come back to them in the future when I do encounter probs with vandals? aNode   (discuss)  05:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries! In fact, I think I'll make it optional for passing this course. The more I do this, the more I think it's not that good an idea to force people to find things to report. I'll look at your responses as soon as I can. (I've been very busy lately, unfortunately. Sorry in advance about the delay.) Mz7 (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be nice for further students, I guess! It's not everyday we encounter bad apples to report, so maybe keep the RPP/AIV stuff for extra credit in case of anything ;) Can't wait to see how I did! aNode   (discuss)  07:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a quick ping to remind you of the final test, it still appears to be ungraded for the past month! aNode   (discuss)  01:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops! I am so sorry. This completely slipped my mind. I will do it now. Mz7 (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for grading my test! I have read through your comments and will keep it in mind for any future encounters. Thus, have I completed the academy course yet? :) aNode   (discuss)  04:26, 16 October 2018 (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. 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). :

- Acknowledgements: I would like to thank, who has graciously published his training methods on-wiki. As I thought his methods were of higher quality than anything I could achieve on myself, I used his materials for your training, with a few minor tweaks. The originals can be found at User:Callanecc/CVUA/Tasks. Mz7 (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)