User:Pratyya Ghosh/My CVUA

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 you have 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 atmy 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.

Good faith and vandalism
When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. It is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labelling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.


 * Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.


 * Good faith edit is that kind of edit which was edited- having a good faith. More the edit was made in order to help wikipedia but unfortunately the edit was not helpful for WP.The newcomers mostly goes through this kind of edits.


 * Again vandalism edit is removal, adding or change of an article deliberately which is an attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Means intentional unhelpful and bad edit which makes wikipedia somehow bad.
 * Yes. The difference between good faith and vandalism is that contributors who are acting in good faith are trying to improve WP, but have there edit have caused disruption and clearly unnecessary; vandals are those who expressly cause disruption. If it is an edit was an accident by mistake, or done by someone that they'd don't know that it was already distrupting WP, it is good faith. If the editor obviously and intentionally knew that they would caused bad effects, it is vandalism or bad faith.


 * Please find and revert three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. Please warn the editors with the correct template and give the diffs of your reverts below. If you need help with using diffs, just ask me.


 * Good faith


 * Vandalism
 * That's great! Fantastic. Now, the good faith revert in Sakow District may be considered as vandalism because it's all gibberish and nonsense characters. Maybe it's another language that's why it is gibberish. Also, in University Students' Council (Malta) vandal revert, it may be considered as good faith because what the user did makes sense and is somewhat true. Look at the revision carefully. Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's great! Fantastic. Now, the good faith revert in Sakow District may be considered as vandalism because it's all gibberish and nonsense characters. Maybe it's another language that's why it is gibberish. Also, in University Students' Council (Malta) vandal revert, it may be considered as good faith because what the user did makes sense and is somewhat true. Look at the revision carefully. Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's great! Fantastic. Now, the good faith revert in Sakow District may be considered as vandalism because it's all gibberish and nonsense characters. Maybe it's another language that's why it is gibberish. Also, in University Students' Council (Malta) vandal revert, it may be considered as good faith because what the user did makes sense and is somewhat true. Look at the revision carefully. Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's great! Fantastic. Now, the good faith revert in Sakow District may be considered as vandalism because it's all gibberish and nonsense characters. Maybe it's another language that's why it is gibberish. Also, in University Students' Council (Malta) vandal revert, it may be considered as good faith because what the user did makes sense and is somewhat true. Look at the revision carefully. Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning and reporting
As you know, we are using Twinke, which is very useful for warning users. 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:UWUL.


 * Please answer the following questions.
 * Why do we warn users?
 * We warn users when they make vandalism or bad edits. We warn users to stop them from this kind of bad and vandal editings and to make them understand that their editing was bad


 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
 * In cases of extreme or severe vandalism it is appropriate to use the Level 4im warning.Also if an user or editor continues vandalism after Level 3 warning then it is appropriate to use 4im warning.


 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * I'll report the user to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Then an administrator will review that user's contribution and take the final decision whether the user will be blocked or not.


 * If a user has vandalised twice but has not received any warnings for it, what might you do?
 * In that case I'll myself warn the user. And If I'm confused about it then I'll report that user to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * That's great! Cheers! But I see one flaw. Now, if you are going to report vandals, you can report it to Administrator intervention against vandalism. Using Twinkle is for me the best way and the easiest way to report a user at AIV. Mediran  ( t  • c ) 13:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * PS Level 4im warnings are those "only-warnings". Only warnings are the first and last warnings. These warnings are used for obvious sockpuppet vandals or a returning long term vandalism. Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 13:22, 26 December 2012 (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.

Make sure you keep in mind that some edits that seem like vandalism can betest 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.


 * , is used for an user who've made mistake one more time which undid by another user.It's not any warning.


 * , is used to say a user that his/her crated article did not followed List of policies and that will be removed. In this template the user is given some instructions like using sandbox for test edit and read the Your first article page and the Introduction page before any edit.

-- Pr aty ya  (have a chat?) 14:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * , is used to make an user understand about his mistake as he/she removed some content of an Wikipedia article.The template also says this that he/she needs to describe the description for his removal with an edit summary.There also said that if the user needed some help then he can free to ask.
 * That's almost good. Your choice were perfect but warnings were more used in new page patrolling. But don't worry, that warning is also helpful for recent changes patrolling. Your next task will coming soon! Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 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

I've found 3 vandalism in 1 user. I don't know whether the IP adress was angry with me. At first he made vandalism for 2 times in pageList of One Day International cricket matches played by Bangladesh and Kenya crated by me. Then it vandalised my talk page!!!! By removing a barnstar from my talk page. I've warned that user and reported it to AIV. And now that IP is blocked.-- Pr aty ya  (have a chat?) 11:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Off to your next task. Your reversion was perfect. Yehey! But next time, please include the diff of your reversion and not the diff of the vandal. Thanks! Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 04:15, 28 December 2012 (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.

What you have been doing so far is named the old school approach. As well as manually going throughSpecial: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, 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?


 * Motivations for vandalism (as distinguished from abuse like harassment and edit warring) range from a desire for recognition and infamy, to an aspiration to frustrate the Wikipedia project and community. Vandalism is encouraged by offering such users exceptional notice. This glorification of vandalism through infamy encourages Internet memes through reinforcement, where users imitate notorious or unique vandalism methods for amusement, to share in the infamy, or for the thrill of defying authority and/or the perception of destroying other users' work. Denying recognition and infamy removes the primary motivations for vandalism and disruption. And for this reason we deny recognition to troll and vandals.

-- Pr aty ya  (have a chat?) 06:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please rephrase it and explain it in your own words. Do not copy other's works and please have it in your own way. Thanks. Mediran ( t  •  c ) 08:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Trolls and vandalism motivation are to defame the wikipedia community.When a user become frustrated or angry with another user or Wikipedia it tries to make frustrate wikipedia community and that is encouraged by offering exceptional notice to such users.Denying recognition and infamy removes the primary motivations for vandalism and disruption.And for this reason we deny recognition to troll and vandals.

-- Pr aty ya  (have a chat?) 08:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'm a bit confused about your answer but it's passable alright. Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 09:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?
 * You see a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit is a kind of discussion where an user asks another user why he reverted his/her edits. When you revert or convert or cahnge another user's work it's natural for you to be questioned from that user.He/she can ask you about the change. When this type of moment comes and another user asks you in a gentle way why I reverted or change their edits.And it is a good faith user asking .Here's an example-


 * I can show them practically. Just yesterday I was in a bad situation.  a troll trying to harass me  means an user tries to harass or vandalise me. It means when I reverted that user's edit, he/she became frustrated or angry and tries to make my name go down or make me feeling harass or make my page vandal etc. As my user page is protected so it tries to vandalise my talk page. It just vandalism in my experience. An example- . But you see you'll see how many harassment are there.

-- Pr aty ya  (have a chat?) 06:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please expound what you have presented. Thanks. Mediran ( t  •  c ) 08:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You must add your own way on how you are going to approach, tell or answer good faith editors or trolls in such situations when they ask you or harass you respectively. What could be the possible kind of answer or approach you can give to them? Mediran  ( t  • c ) 09:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I guess your answer is fair enough. Great job, your next question is coming up! Thanks! Mediran  ( t  • c ) 09:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * PS The best way I think to tell between a good faith user and a troll in such situations when they ask or harass you respectively is how they approach or engage you - if they're either friendly, assuming good faith, concern, then they are probably a GF user. Users who just harass or just abuse you might be trolls. Also, the first step if someone questions or doubted one of your reverts is check it first if his query in regards of the revert really was vandalism. Once you're confident that your revert was correct and there's nothing to worry about, you would then talk to them in a good manner of course. Mediran  ( t  • c ) 10:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If a user believes an edit of their which you reverted was not vandalism, and questioned you about it, what should you do?
 * Naturally it's possible. In that case I'll see the history again. Human makes mistake so could I. If really it was my mistake then I'll revert my mistake and say sorry to that user. But in the other hand if it was really an vandalism I'll make that user understand about vandalism and tell him/her not to make vandalism in future. But I'll not warn him that time as he wanted to know.

-- Pr aty ya  (have a chat?) 10:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Great answers. Off to your next task. Thanks! Mediran ( t  •  c ) 10:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion
Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only anadministrator 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 WP:PROTECT.


 * In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
 * Semi-protected pages can be edited by auto-confirmed users and also administrators.

A page will be semi-protected for vandalism mainly.
 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?
 * Pending changes are for IP addresses or new users.It is used to supress vandalism.While allowing IPs edit pending changes are used as semi-protection alternative.So that is hidden and cannot be read by the most of the users while they're not reviewed by a reviewer.


 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * Content disputes-
 * Vandalism- When a large number of auto-confirmed vandalise a page then the page is fully protected from vandalism.
 * "History only" review- When a deleted page goes under deletion review the admins can easily see the contents of the deleted page. But non-admins can't do that. But if an admin think the page is well then he/she may restore that blank or like previous.But with a deletation tag or any tag that suits.And will make that page fully protected. Then non-admins can change the page by using the history of that page.


 * Protected generic image names- Generic image names like File:map.jpg are fully protected so that a new version can't be uploaded.

-- Pr aty ya  (have a chat?) 10:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

Here's one diff.

or

or


 * Requests for page protection

-- Pr aty ya  (have a chat?) 11:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha... your request for protection was successful! Great answers, semi-protection may apply for articles experiencing high levels of vandalism or edit warring from IPs and newbies. PC protection apply for infrequently-edited articles that are experiencing extreme vandalism or BLP violations from IPs and new users. Full protection applies for articles experiencing persistent vandalism or edit warring from (auto)confirmed accounts and for important templates as per WP:PP. Now, off you go to your next assignment. Mediran ( t  •  c ) 12:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.


 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?
 * When a page contains vandalism or copy-right violation or spam the article should be deleted. Also useless template, overcategorization, advertisement, neologisms,original theory etc. can be the cause of speedy deletation. At last the articles which are not suitable for wikipedia will be speedy deleted.

-- Pr aty ya  (have a chat?) 12:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons - they can be for any of the criteria) and post the diff andthe criteria you requested it be deleted under below.
 * 122.176.133.191/All Starz Gaming
 * GRM Document Management
 * Cheong Soon Haur
 * Wow, your tagging was great. But at least you have one mistake with the correct tag in GRM Document Management. Mediran ( t  •  c ) 00:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Usernames
Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol theUser 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 (includingnon-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).


 * DJohnson
 * In my thinking this one is OK.
 * ✅ that's right, it doesn't violates of any disallowed usernames.


 * LMedicalCentre
 * It breaches Promotional usernames. Because it represents a company or organization.
 * ✅ yes its promotional but it can be misleading too if the user doesn't done any promotional edits.


 * Fuqudik
 * I think not OK. It is quite offensive.
 * ✅ that's right!


 * ColesStaff
 * Okay, But it is promotional. Because it represents a post at some company or organization.
 * ✅ yes its promotional but it can be misleading too if the user doesn't done any promotional edits.


 * It never can be an Username. It is 4 tildes and It is the easy signature format in WP. This one must not be allowed as an Username.
 * ✅ that's right!
 * ✅ that's right!


 * 172.295.64.27
 * It's like an IP address. So it can't be an Username for a logged in user.
 * Unfortunately, this is not a good username. This username is misleading because it gives an impression that this username is an anonymous user.


 * Bieberisgay
 * Looks Okay. But a bit offensive in my thinking.
 * ✅ that's right!

--  Pr at yya   (Happy New Year) 06:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh... your answers were great but I see some flaw in regards of which. But that's just OK. Off to your next task! ;) Mediran ( t  •  c ) 06:25, 31 December 2012 (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?
 * Ans: It would be considered vandalism.Because X is gay is an offensive sentence and it's blatant.


 * Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?
 *  Ans: It breaches the Disruptive editing policy.


 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?
 * Ans: I believe . Or  . If it had previous warning then higher warning would be appropriate.


 * 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?
 * Ans: I believe No and never. Because the 3 Revert Rule(3RR) does not apply against reverting obvious vandalism. Seethis


 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or ?
 * Ans: As the vandalism was made by IP address so the IPvandal should be used in this case.


 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
 *  Ans: Making blatant vandalism and disruptive editing.
 * ✅ also violating 3RR.

--  Pr at yya   (Happy New Year) 08:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Great answers! Fantastic!  Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 11:42, 31 December 2012 (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?
 * Ans: It'll be considered good faith edit. Because the user "Hi999" is new and don't know about editing wikipedia. And made mistake for this reason.
 * ✅ that's very pleasing. That reflects on how you're a good faith editor by considering other's edits as GF since they were new but that scenario depends if his edits were expressly disruptive. Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 09:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?
 * Ans: If the talk page is empty then . But if that was not empty, messages were posted on that user talk then  will be appropriate.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 09:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?
 * Ans: As it was not vandalism so not the Rollback-Vandal (Red). Rollback (Blue) will be fine.

PS: I havent seen the Rollback-AGF (Green) yet. So I don't know about it's using. Tell me about this at my talk page.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 09:30, 3 January 2013 (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?
 * Ans: It would be better to do that. But I think one can do that if the warnings were for vandalism and that vandalism were too offensive. But it'd be better to wait for the level 4 warning.Because the level 3 warning says if you make vandalism again you may be blocked from editing. So we should wait for the level 4 warning.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 09:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?
 * Ans: Surely.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 09:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or ?
 * Ans: The should be used as the user is a registered user, not any IP address.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 09:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
 * Ans: For making vandalism after having warning and making test editings too after having warning.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 09:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

-- Pr at yya (Happy New Year) 15:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Great answers. I will respond on your talk page ASAP for that query you want to know. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  • c ) 09:30, 3 January 2013 (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?
 * Ans: I would use The rollback option per
 * ✅ but you should choose the vandal option most because it was stated there that the user added external link targeted to a company or that has something to do with spam. Addition of spam links are considered as vandalism. Mediran  ( t  • c ) 12:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you do revert which warning template would you use?
 * Ans: I think would be better.


 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?
 * Ans: Yes. The page can be tagged with speedy deletion tag for G11 unambiguous advertising.
 * ✅ also tagging it for G12 as the user did copied contexts from the website thus it violates copyvio. Mediran ( t  •  c ) 12:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?
 * Ans: Yes. The will be good.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?
 * Ans: Yes I would report the user to UAA because it has violated the Promotional names.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 12:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Results
Your Score: 18/18 That is impressive! Mediran ( t  •  c ) 12:31, 3 January 2013 (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.


 * Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.
 * Ans: Rollback can be used to revert vandalism. Also rollback can be used at my userspace or edits made by me.At last we can use the rollback option to revert edits made by banned user. And
 * We can't use the rollback option to revert good-faith edit.

-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 08:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your answers are fantastic! Now, rollback is a tool for reverting vandalism. It is a very helpful, useful and efficient tool for reverting vandalism. Rollback should be used only for vandalism, reverting your own revision but not for reverting good faith edits. Rollback is a very essential tool for anti-vandal editors but this tool should not be abused from use because it might be taken away from you. Rollback should be used with discipline and respect. As what Spider-Man said; "with great power, comes great responsibility". Rollback should be used responsibly because having rollback rights is a very powerful tool to revert one's revisions in just one click of a button. If you're going to acquire this right, you should remember these for you to have prior knowledge on what anti-vandal is. Your next task is coming up! Sorry for the delays. Mediran ( t  •  c ) 09:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Tools
There a number of tools which assist users with reverting vandalism. I primarily use two of them WP:HUGGLE &WP:STIKI.


 * Would you like to learn to use either of these tools (Huggle & STiki)? Why?
 * Ans: Yes I would. Because I want to know about all the things or tools are used against vandalism and more specifically how to use them.


 * Discuss the three requirements/qualifications a user need to acquire to use STiki.
 * Ans: A user needs
 * rollback right.
 * At least 1000 edits at the article space. and
 * Special permission via the STiki talk page.
 * to acquire to use STiki

-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 12:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Pratyya! Great answers. Those were great, I guess when you have enough knowledge with anti-vandalism patrolling, you can now acquire those tools or even rollback. Sorry to say, can you wait for about a week before you take your next task? Because your next task includes my supervision wherein I will monitor you doing vandalism patrolling for 5 days. I will be busy these days because I will have my periodical examination. Are you OK with that? I guess at January 17 or 18, I will be back for this CVU. I'm really really sorry. Good luck for your next task! Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 09:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Monitoring period
Congratulations! You have completed the first section of the anti-vandalism course, well done. Now that we've been through everything that you need to know as a vandal patroller, you will be given a 5 day monitoring period. During this time, you are free to revert vandalism (and edit Wikipedia) as you normally do; I will monitor your progress in anti-vandalism. If there are any issues, I will raise them with you and if you have any problems, you are free to ask me. After five days, if I am satisfued with your progress, you will take the final test; passing this will mean you graduate from the CVUA. Good luck! Mediran ( t  •  c ) 09:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: the monitoring period has been moved last January 20, 2013 and ended on January 24, 2013 due to some schedule issues. Anyway, the counter-vandalism works of this user during his monitoring period was a guaranteed success and this user have access now to the next and final test of this programme. Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 11:11, 25 January 2013 (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! Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 11:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Part 1 (25%)

 * For each of these examples, please state whether an edit is vandalism or good faith (please also include a brief reason).


 * 1) A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article.
 * I believe vandalism. But if I think about myself once, I can say it good-faith too. Because I did this 6 months ago by mistake. And that time someone reverted it as good-faith.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 11:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds their signature over and over into an article.
 * It's good faith. Mostly newcomers and some IP's do this.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 11:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article.
 * It's purely vandalism. The user edits like advertisement.
 * ✅ could be vandalism or it can also be good-faith because it also deals with conflicts addressing NPOV. Mediran ( t  •  c ) 11:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article.
 * Good faith. Probably doesn't know about a talk page.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 11:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) A user removes sources information from an article, with the summary 'this is wrong'.
 * Good faith. May be the user also doesn't know about talk page. But good faith cause he/she can know better about that article and can change that and changing that isn't vandal but that's good for WP. But as I said he/she doesn't know about talk page
 * ✅ Ahh... this one is tricky because according to WP:VANDAL, removal of contents are classified as vandalism. However, the user did add an es of 'this is wrong' so that the revision could be revert as GF. PS you can go on solving these question continuously without stopping per part number. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 11:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Part 2 (15%)

 * What type of warning you would give an editor in the following scenarios. If you don't believe a warning is appropriate outline what you would do instead (make sure you state all the actions you would take).

PS You can continuously fill up all these questions prepared in this test and notify me if you're done in answering the wholetest. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) A user blanks Cheesecake.
 * Revert as vandalism and warn with Template:uw-delete1 if no warning was posted or nothing was posted to that user talk. But if there was warning before or recently then the warning should be higher according to the warnings placed at that talk page.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
 * It's pure vandalism and has to revert as vandalism and warn with Template:uw-vandalism1 if no warning was posted or nothing was posted to that user talk. But if there was warning before or recently then the warning should be higher according to the warnings placed at that talk page.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
 * I'll do nothing. But maybe should warn with Template:uw-wrongsummary. But in case.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
 * Blatant vandalism. Will have to revert as vandalism and have to warn with Template:uw-vandalism1 if no warning was posted or nothing was posted to that user talk. But if there was warning before or recently then the warning should be higher according to the warnings placed at that talk page.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
 * Revert as vandalism and warn with Template:uw-delete1 if no warning was posted or nothing was posted to that user talk. But if there was warning before or recently then the warning should be higher according to the warnings placed at that talk page.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
 * Revert as Good faith and warn with Template:uw-test1 if no warning was posted or nothing was posted to that user talk. But if there was warning before or recently then the warning should be higher according to the warnings placed at that talk page. But in some caseTemplate:uw-vandalism should be applied.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
 * Um... Revert as vandalism and warn with Template:uw-vandalism1 if no warning was posted or nothing was posted to that user talk. But if there was warning before or recently then the warning should be higher according to the warnings placed at that talk page.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
 * It could be many things. If he/she can show reliable source then it's okay. But if not then a unsourced template should be added. But I thing it should be reverted cause getting arrested is a big thing. Again if we can find this is wrong and placed for fun or make vandals then Template:uw-vandalism1 should be placed if no warning was posted or nothing was posted to that user talk. But if there was warning before or recently then the warning should be higher according to the warnings placed at that talk page. And last if the reverter doesn't think of vandalism then Template:uw-unsourced1 is or more higher is better.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer for a fifth time.
 * Just revert the edit and report the user to administrator.
 * ✅ at AIV basically. Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:22, 25 January 2013 (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).
 * It's a personal attack I think. Also vandalism too. So after reverting it I might place Template:uw-npa1 to the user's talk page. But Template:uw-vandalism1 or higher isn't bad either.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * Should be reverted as Good Faith edit and warned with Template:Uw-image1 or higher.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 12:22, 25 January 2013 (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)!
 * Template:Db-g11
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
 * Template:Db-g11
 * ✅ or it could be also Template:Db-person. Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Joe Nathan is the biggest idiot!
 * Template:db-g10
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
 * Don't know what's a Smadoodle. So I'd prefer Template:Db-a1.
 * it should be Template:Db-hoax or Template:Db-g3. That is obviously a hoax. Mediran  ( t  • c ) 01:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Fuck Wiki!
 * Template:Db-a1
 * it should be Template:db-g10 as an attack. Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What would you do in the following circumstance:
 * A user blanks a page they very recently created.
 * Tag with Template:Db-g7
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
 * Just add Template:Db-g7. Cause the author blanks the page.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:47, 26 January 2013 (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
 * Promotional. Should be reported to WP:UAA after he/she makes an edit.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Poopbubbles
 * Offensive. Should be reported to WP:UAA
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Brian's Bot
 * Misleading. Thinks like bot. Should warn with Template:uw-username and if no response then report it.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
 * Confusing. Should be reported
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Bobsysop
 * Misleading warn with Template:uw-username.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 12:12, 23 June 2012
 * Confusing. Cause it's the wiki time format. Should be reported.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) PMiller
 * At last. Perfect.
 * ✅ 01:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) OfficialJustinBieber
 * Promotional. Also misleading. Should be reported.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

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 vandals isn't edit war or doesn't follow the definition of edit war
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 02:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
 * If a user ignores several warnings do vandals then he/she can be reported to WP:AIV.
 * how? Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 02:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
 * If a user vandalizes WP for a long time or makes fun for a long time then the user should be reported at WP:LTA
 * how? Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 02:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
 * If a user's username breaches the WP Username policy then the user can be reported at WP:UAA
 * how? Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 02:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
 * If a user continuously attacks a user like making vandal edits at talk page then the user should be reported to WP:ANI
 * how? Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 02:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Where and how should an edit war be reported?
 * If a user goes in edit war with another user. Like undoing or reverting edits in a page for 3 times in 24 hours then it's breaks the 3RR. It also called edit war. In this case a user should be reported to WP:AN3
 * how? Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 02:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
 * Like violations at a WP:BLP page can reported to the WP:BLPN.
 * how? Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 02:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:11, 26 January 2013 (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) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phoenix_%28mythology%29&diff=534815843&oldid=534815596 Phoenix (mythology)] + [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:174.91.79.152&diff=534816029&oldid=534503225 User talk:174.91.79.152]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_N._Keys&diff=534816776&oldid=534816695 David N. Keys] + [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.195.237.38&diff=534816802&oldid=533327691 User talk:74.195.237.38]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Nelson&diff=next&oldid=534818426 Trevor Nelson] + [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:87.224.91.175&diff=534818684&oldid=534818648 User talk:87.224.91.175]
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:13, 26 January 2013 (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) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venkatapuram,_Kurnool&diff=534821447&oldid=534821104 Venkatapuram, Kurnool] + [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:117.195.106.34 User talk:117.195.106.34]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raji_James&diff=534822316&oldid=534725468 Raji James] I believe no warning's needed.
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 3. Correctly report two users (either AIV or ANI). Give the diffs of your report below.
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=535516511&oldid=535515453 AIV] I and a bot both reported that user. So my report was moved. But the blocking request was successful.
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=535521008&oldid=535520970 AIV 2]
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4. Correctly request the protection of two articles; post the diffs of your requests below.
 * 1) Yahoo!
 * 2) Skype
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 5. Correctly nominate one articles for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nominations below.
 * 1) Supergirl Rises [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supergirl_Rises&diff=534819664&oldid=534819218 Supergirl Rises]
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6. Correctly report one username as a breache of policy.
 * 1) Ministere des affaires etrangeres
 * ✅ Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Graduate
Congratulations Pratyya Ghosh on your successful completion of this CVUA programme from the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with 97% and no issues came up during your 5 day monitoring period as well as in the rest of the course. Well done. Mediran ( t  •  c ) 02:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As a CVU graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox. :