User:Neuropol/cuvagraduation

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


 * How to use this page

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.


 * Once you graduate I will copy this page into your userspace so you have a record of your training and a reference for the future.

Twinkle
Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.

Twinkle is already my preferred tool for reverting vandalism, unconstructive edits, and notifying users. ~
 * Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.

good

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.

A good faith edit is one which, regardless of actual relevance, quality, truthfulness (disinformation and misinformation distinction), or value, is made with the genuine intent of improving the encyclopedia. Examples include any edits with the intent to revert vandalism, remove advertising, and/or add information, sources, and other encyclopedic content. Vandalism refers to any form of editing which is deliberately contradictory to Wikipedia's goal of creating a free-editing knowledge base. Examples include the deletion of valid encyclopedic content, wrongfully removing content on user pages and talk pages, and insertion of obvious jokes, harassment, and defamation (this can be difficult to identify; someone may add in good faith "[person] has done [controversial or otherwise factually unsupportable action]" into articles, but it is likely vandalism if someone were to add "[person] is a dirty [expletive or slur] who does [action described earlier]"). Differentiating good faith and vandalism can be difficult. There are some clues that editors can make. While not always true, as some editors are simply forgetful or don't understand, false edit summaries are a key indicator of this. If someone writes "fixed typo," but upon opening the difference between versions, there is an obvious byte difference (usually should not exceed 10 bytes for summaries of that nature), and/or content is removed or added, this may indicate the editor has vandalized the page in question and is attempting to conceal if with a false edit summary. Immature edit summaries, such as those which are comprised of random characters or humorous unrelated content, may also indicate this. Engagements with a user may also indicate their intent. Some editors may respond to notices with replies which blatantly disregard the notice. For example, one time an editor responded to mine and another patroller's notices by deleting them from their talk page and simply writing "no thanks." Insults, stubbornness, and aggressiveness may be less impactful at determining this due to the stress of having what one perceives as a correct edit removed. Edits which promote conspiracy theories may often be in bad faith, but sometimes can be made in good faith, either due to being uninformed or a genuine belief of truth. Recognizing the difference in this case may be obvious depending on the content of what is written, but can be ambiguous quite often. Personhumanperson (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.

very good
 * 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


 * example one - edit was most likely intended to be informative but failed MOS, mechanics, and did not cite sources
 * example two - likely intended to be informative, but incorrect MOS
 * example three - user may have intended to be informative, but no source was cited and the mechanics were incorrect

Good
 * Good
 * Vandalism
 * example one - inaccurate edit summary; user added nonsense and removed references
 * example two - user added expletive to describe person, removed correct information
 * example three - changed name to incorrect name/joke and falsely used minor tag

Warning and reporting
GWhen you use Twinkle to warn a user, you have a number of options to choose from: you can select the kind of warning (for different offences), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4, for increasing severity). Knowing which warning to issue and what level is very important. Further information can be found at WP:WARN and WP:UWUL.


 * Please answer the following questions


 * Why do we warn users?

We warn users for two reasons. The first reason is to point new users, or sometimes experienced ones, in the right direction after making a mistake, erroneously making edits, or unintentionally violating a Wikipedia policy or guideline (when IAR is not reasonable). The second reason we warn users is to inform those who are intentionally disruptive, vandals, uncivil that their behavior is unacceptable. These warnings (level 3/some single-issue warnings and higher) clearly outline that their behavior will result in a block if continued.


 * Good
 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

A 4im warning is appropriate for users who are making repeated and/or grotesque indisputably bad faith edits. This can be for cases of repeated section blanking, threatening other users, excessive use of racial slurs, and uploading/placing unencyclopedic images (e.g. an image of a penis inside a widely visited article). 4im warnings should be used sparingly, but are integral for countering vandalism when it is especially egregious.


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

Templates should always be substituted on user talk pages to prevent misconstrued meaning in the future. It can either be done automatically when submitting a warning through Twinkle, or it can be done by placing "subst:" before the template's name inside the template brackets.


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

A request should be made for administrative review (ARV). Twinkle makes this easy. I use Twinkle's ARV option, inserting the link of the most recently vandalized article and adding a comment about the user's behavior.

good


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

1. - This template is one of the templates I use most often while patrolling. It is used for users who blank or delete content without an adequate explanation specified. Good faith users may receive this warning from non-conscientious patrollers who see missing content without a description and revert it. Good faith reasons include removal of obviously incorrect or uncited/controversial content, or removal of advertising.

good

2. Article - This template is used for those who use personal attacks against others. Making personal attacks in good faith is unlikely, however, good faith editors may be frustrated or angered by a dispute. Bad faith editors may feel the same, or intend to cause discord.

good

3. Article}} - This is the only warning I have received (see the incident for more details). This is used for editors who do not follow Wikipedia's WP:AGF policy. This may be for editors who zealously claim vandalism when reverting edits (as was my case; I have reviewed my behavior), editors who take on a position which is aggressive or accusatory against other editors, especially against IP editors.

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

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


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

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


 * - For general shared IP addresses.
 * - A modified version specifically for use with ISP organizations.
 * - A modified version specifically for use with educational institutions.
 * - A modified version specifically for use with government agencies.
 * - A modified version specifically for use with businesses.
 * - A modified version specifically for use with public terminals such as in libraries, etc.
 * - A modified version specifically for use with a mobile device's IP.
 * - A modified version specifically for use with dynamic IPs.
 * - A modified version specifically for use with static IPs which may be used by more thanone person.

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

Also, given that different people use the IP address, older messages are sometimes refused so as to not confuse the current user of the IP. Generally any messages for the last one-two months are removed, collapsed, or archived. The templates available for this include:


 * for when the messages are deleted from the talk page.
 * and for collapsing the user warnings and leaving them on the talk page.
 * for when the messages are archived, and that archiving follows the usually naming sequence (that is, /Archive 1).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dealing with difficult users
Occasionally, some vandals will not appreciate your good work and try to harass or troll you. In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, youshould 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.

We deny recognition to trolls and vandals because the attention they receive motivates them. Often, trolls and vandals are simply seeking attention or recognition in any possible form, and taking part in these practices is an easy way to receive this, whether negative or positive. A good faith user and a troll can be difficult to distinguish at times, as good faith users will often find themselves frustrated when their seemingly constructive edits are reverted. Trolls will often espouse their edits as objective or true. They will provide vague descriptions and will often use phrases like "my edit is correct" as an unproductive argument. Good faith users will typically ask questions with the intent of finding a solution, with trolls attempting to elicit a reaction. This can be obvious, as with the difference between "why was my edit reverted?" and "why was my obviously correct edit reverted?" The way the user continues to engage is a good identifier as well. A troll may leave multiple messages in as many places as possible, as to confuse a patroller or force them to respond to each one. Trolls may begin reverting the patroller's edits and vandalizing their pages. Obvious incivility is sometimes an indicator, however, it is important to keep the frustration a good faith editor may experience in mind.
 * Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?
 * How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?

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.

A page should be semi-protected in cases of frequent vandalism or sockpuppeting by IP users or brand new accounts. They are often issued for relevant events (i.e. newly released and upcoming movies, controversial living persons), where vandalism or edit warring may be incentivized for a specific issue at a specific time. A page should be pending changes level 1 protected when a page may be less visible or more subject to change than an article which would otherwise be semi-protected. It allows the entry of new information by new users, which in articles like biographies of living persons or ongoing events (besides those excessively controversial, such as the Israel-Palestinian Conflict), is useful due to the frequency of information to change or become updated. A page should be fully protected during times of large disputes and edit wars between experienced (confirmed or extended confirmed) editors. They are normally temporary (with the exception of pages such as the example user page which may be frequently vandalized or accidentally edited by experienced users), and are used until a conflict can be mediated effectively. A page should be salted when it is frequently attempted to be made by new editors, or the same editor and is frequently deleted, especially for lacking notability. It helps to prevent redundancy and notability issues on Wikipedia. A talk page should only be semi-protected when it is frequently vandalized or used for sockpuppetry in a similar manner to a mainspace page. Sometimes, this may be applicable for some notable users, administrators, or counter-vandals whose user talk page is also frequently vandalized. Can provide different example (I noticed query didn't specify 30/500)
 * In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?
 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
 * In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
 * Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.

A page should be speedy deleted when the page either becomes completely redundant (i.e. an orphaned talk page, template, or similar), or the page is undeniably vandalism. This can take place in the form of pages intended to be offensive or nonconstructive, tests, random text, or blatant hoaxes. A talk page for a page which does not exist anymore should be speedy deleted (if, for some reason, it was not already deleted when the original page was). Pages which were created by blocked users can also be speedy deleted in case of vandalism, and any page can be speedy deleted at the request of the original author.
 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?
 * 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.


 * First example - G8; may start an RfD for the main redirect as well you should have redirected that. I would recommend staying clear of nominationing older articles in the main space for csds

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:


 * 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.

Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particluar attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.


 * Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).


 * DJohnson

No action is required against this user. Using your real name is allowed (but discouraged).


 * LMedicalCentre

I would report this user to UAA. This could either be a promotional username or a misleading username, and is likely both.


 * Fuqudik

For this username, I would issue them a warning to change their username before taking action. The username is suggestive, but the presence of this name alone only implies a misunderstanding of policy. It is a disruptive username.


 * ColesStaff

I would ask about this username and consider the nature of the user's edits before taking action. The meaning could be referring to the staff of an organization, however it could also be possessive (as in, a wizard's staff). It classifies as a promotional username if not.



This is a disruptive username and a misleading username. It contains non-traditional characters which are disruptive to the markup of Wikipedia and confuses users. I would report it to UAA immediately.


 * 172.295.64.27

This is a misleading username. It is an IP address, which are confusing for signatures, and may be intended to impersonate an IP. I would report it to UAA.


 * Bieberisgay

This username should be reported to UAA immediately. It is an offensive username which is libel and/or insulting to a celebrity.

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.

This edit is most likely vandalism. Justin Bieber has not been known to be homosexual, and this is most likely defamatory as a result of homophobic social stigma. It could be good faith if it cites a source, however, it is highly unlikely. It is breaching WP:NPA, WP:LIBEL, and Biographies of living persons Due to the possibility of a test edit, Article is most appropriate.
 * Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?
 * Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?
 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?
 * The user has now added offensive words to the article 3 times. You have reverted three times already, can you be blocked for violating the three revert rule in this case?

It is unlikely that I will be blocked for violating the three-revert rule. This could be compliant with WP:3RRNO, however, proceeding is not advised. Reporting to ARV, if applicable with l4 warnings, may be most advisable. Consulting another user beforehand may be helpful as well.


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

is most applicable.


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

Repeated vandalism and vandalism past level 4 warning, as well as edit warning per [[WP:3RR].

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?

This should be classified as a test edit. Adding random letters is a recognized indicator of test edits.


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

A level 1 warning for test edits would be most appropriate.


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

Rollback (blue) is most appropriate.


 * 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?

No. A level 4 warning, unless offenses are egregious, must be applied before reporting to AIV.


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

This user can be blocked indefinitely if they continue to vandalize without cessation after being blocked.


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

is most appropriate.


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

I would include vandalism past a level 4 warning, and a possible vandalism-only account.

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?

I would use the rollback (blue) option.

I would use the Article template. I would tag this article for speedy deletion per CSD G11. I would leave the Article template on their talk page. I would report them to UAA. It is unambiguous promotion/advertising, represents an organization, and may imply shared use.
 * If you do revert which warning template would you use?
 * Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?
 * Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?
 * Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?

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.

The rollback button should only be used for reverting clear and unambiguous vandalism. It should not be used for good faith edits, and instead, other methods of reverting (like manually restoring a page or with a Twinkle rollback button) should be used.
 * Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.

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

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

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

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (25%)

 * For each of these examples, please state whether you would call the edit(s) described as vandalism or good faith edit, a reason for that, and how you would deal with the situation (ensuring you answer the questions where applicable).


 * 1) A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article. What would you do if it was their first warning? What about after that.
 * This is a test edit. Because of this, I would use the level 1 warning template for test edits. On their second instance, I would increase the level, before switching to disruptive editing templates.
 * 1) A user adds their signature to an article after one being given a  warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?
 * For any following instances of this user signing their name onto articles, I would use the templates, increasing in level, for disruptive editing.
 * 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?
 * For this user, I would revert their edit and issue them stacking warnings for not maintaining a neutral point of view, making a report to administration after continued persistence beyond a level 4 warning.
 * 1) A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
 * For this user, I would issue them a warning for making a test edit. I would continue stacking these warnings until level 4, after which I would submit a report.
 * 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?
 * For this user, I would issue them a warning for unexplained removal of content. If this persists, I would attempt to open a dialogue about it on the user's or article's talk page, before stacking warnings. I would not treat an experienced user differently. WP:BITE and WP:TTR.

Part 2 (15%)

 * Which templates warning would give an editor in the following scenarios. If you don't believe a template warning is appropriate outline the steps (for example what you would say) you would take instead.


 * 1) A user blanks Cheesecake.
 * 2) A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
 * I would first examine the edits, to see if they were helpful (i.e. relevant quotes), before using
 * 1) A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
 * 2) A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
 * . Likely a test (joke about/with a friend).
 * 1) A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
 * If persistent, I would attempt to open a dialogue on the user talk page.
 * 1) A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
 * 2) A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
 * < Likely same scenario as 4.
 * 1) A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
 * 2) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
 * 3) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
 * No warning, report to AIV.
 * 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).
 * Revert, and request intervention of other editors before warning user
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
 * No warning, report to AIV.
 * 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).
 * Revert, and request intervention of other editors before warning user
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.

Part 3 (10%)

 * What CSD tag you would put on the following articles (The content below is the article's content).


 * 1) Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
 * G11
 * 1) Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
 * A1
 * 1) Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
 * A1
 * 1) A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
 * G3
 * 1) Fuck Wiki!
 * G10 or G3 (depending on intended subject of article as seen in title)

What would you do in the following circumstance:

I would ask the author about their blanking. In the mainspace, I would either restore a former version of the article, or tag the article G7.
 * A user blanks a page they very recently created.

I would attempt to establish communication with the editor, and notice them with
 * After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.

Part 4 (10%)

 * Are the following new (logged in) usernames violations of the username policy? Describe why or why not and what you would do about it (if they are a breach).


 * 1) TheMainStreetBand
 * This may be a violation of the WP:ISU section of the username policy. More information is needed, so I would discuss this with the user before making a report.
 * 1) Poopbubbles
 * This is not a breach of the username policy. It may be informal, but does not convey any ill-intent, and may be used constructively.
 * 1) Brian's Bot
 * This is likely a violation of the WP:MISLEADNAME section of the username policy. If it is a bot, it is in violation of the bot policy, and so it would be reported.
 * 1) sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
 * I would use on their talk page.
 * 1) Bobsysop
 * I would discuss this with the user first, informing them of the policy and a potential dual meaning. It is a violation of WP:MISLEADNAME.
 * 12:12, 23 June 2012
 * This is a confusing username. I would attempt to open a discussion with the user before requesting administrator attention.
 * 1) PMiller
 * I would discuss this username with the user before requesting it be seen for attention. This user may be a fan of P. Miller who is unaware of the policy.
 * 1) OfficialJustinBieber
 * I would report this user to UAA. It is a violation of WP:MISLEADNAME.

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)?
 * Reverting obvious vandalism may be acceptable in the context of an edit war, as specified in the policy, however, users often still face punishment as a result of edit warring. Often, one can be punished for such.
 * 1) Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
 * A vandalism-only account should be reported to AIV. Twinkle's ARV feature accepts an option to tag a user as evidently vandalism-only, which should be otherwise manually specified in the AIV report.
 * 1) Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
 * Complex abuse should be reported to WP:ANI with an explanation of the complex abuse and its nature.
 * 1) Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
 * Blatant username violations should be reported to WP:UAA with a reason in the username policy specified.
 * 1) Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
 * Personal attacks should be specified at WP:ANI with the affected user specified.
 * 1) Where and how should an edit war be reported?
 * Edit wars should be reported to WP:AN3 with the involved users and diffs specified.
 * 1) Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
 * Ambiguous violations of the BLP policy should be reported to WP:BLP/N, with an explanation. If it is ambiguous, it should ideally be discussed with the user before making a report.

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.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:196.207.138.247&oldid=1220212660 Instance 1 (no diff due to nothing to compare; vandalism determined by misleading edit summary) ]

Instance 2 (I reverted the edit, but experienced an edit conflict for an identical warning when attempting to warn; warning is identical to one I attempted to make)

Instance 3 (excessive vandalism; deliberately incorrect information; subtle vandalism)

Instance 1 (user failed MOS; incorrect grammar, naming, but otherwise constructive; edit was fixed by me)
 * 2. Find and revert two good faith edits, and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.

Instance 2 (user failed MOS; no source added) Instance 1 (evidently vandalism-only account; targets specific subject with similar edits)
 * 3. Correctly report two users (either AIV or ANI). Give the diffs of your report below.

Instance 2 (persistent IP vandalism) Instance 1 (persistent IP vandalism over short period of time)
 * 4. Correctly request the protection of two articles; post the diffs of your requests below.

Instance 2 (persistent vandalism among registered users; contentious topic) Instance (self-promotion in userspace) Instance (profane)
 * 5. Correctly nominate one article for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nominations below.
 * 6. Correctly report one username as a breach of policy.

100%

Completion
''Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy, on yoursuccessful completion of my CVUA instruction and graduation from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with 100% and no issues came up during your 5 day monitoring period; well done.''

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