User:Puddleglum2.0/Thanoscar21

Hello, 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

There are several sections of the training course. In some of them, will be asking you to do perform practical exercises; in others, I will ask you to read certain policies and guidelines, and then ask you some questions about their content. To be clear, it is not a problem if you give the wrong answer to any of the questions - making mistakes and discussing them is a crucial part of the learning process. For that reason, it is important that you do not attempt to find previous users' training pages in order to identify the 'right' answers to give: all your answers should be your own, so that we can identify and address any misconceptions that you might have. There is no time pressure to complete the course: we will go at whatever pace works for you, and you can take a pause or ask questions at any point along the way.
 * The CVUA curriculum

Counter-vandalism work can result in very large watchlists, which can make it more difficult to monitor pages using that alone. For this reason, I will ping you whenever I update this page with some feedback or a new task; I would also ask you to ping me when you have completed a task, so that I get a notification telling me that it's ready for review. See WP:PING for details on how to do this if you aren't sure. -- puddleglum  2.0  18:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Communication

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've enabled Twinkle. Respectfully, Thanoscar21 (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Nice, next section below. -- puddleglum  2.0  19:52, 13 May 2020 (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. While it is often necessary to revert such edits, we treat them differently from vandalism, so it is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the tasks in this section.


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


 * A good faith edit would be when one edits something that's unsourced, may be opinionated, and something that doesn't quite belong on Wikipedia, but not vandalism. Vandalism is something that's destructive. It would be spam, advertising, or something that's rude, offensive, and obscene. Thanks, Thanoscar21 (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * all that is correct, but I'd add that the most important distinction  between good faith and vandalism is the intent behind the edit; whether it is intended to help or harm the encyclopedia. even edits with the intent to help don't necessarily help. Does this make sense? Assuming it does, I've added some more below. -- puddleglum  2.0  19:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. You don't need to revert the example you find, and I am happy for you to use previous undos in your edit history if you wish. Place diffs below

I've fixed it, hopefully it works now! Thanks, Thanoscar21 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * | Good faith edit no. 1
 * | Good faith edit no. 2
 * ❌ I think that's a deliberate hoax - obviously not true, so I would revert as vandalism.
 * | Good faith edit no. 3
 * ❌ "sugary" has nothing to do with the quote and context - I would revert as vandalism.
 * | Vandalism no. 1
 * | Vandalism no. 2
 * | Vandalism no. 3
 * Thanks!
 * | Vandalism no. 3
 * Thanks!
 * Thanks!
 * Thanks!


 * Just a side note: Is your username a reference to Puddleglum from Narnia?


 * Thanoscar21 (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I can't seem to see the diff between revisions; are you linking to correct diffs? I'll look into it more, but if you know what's wrong, please feel free to correct it. Yup, my username is inspired by the character from The Silver Chair, I enjoy the works of CS Lewis. =) Cheers, -- puddleglum  2.0  16:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice job. I think you have vandalism edits down, but would you mind finding two more good faith edits? It's an important distinction to make, so I would like to make sure you have it down. If you're having trouble, please just stop me a line, either here or my talk page. All the best, -- puddleglum  2.0  19:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Here they are. Thanks, Thanoscar21 (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * | Good faith edit no. 2
 * | Good faith edit no. 3
 * | Good faith edit no. 3

A note about Twinkle
Hopefully you'll have noticed that Twinkle allows you three options for performing a rollback - green, blue, and red links (see the screenshot). All three will revert all of the most recent consecutive edits made by a single user to a page.

Try to use these buttons where possible. The green and the blue ones allow you to add an edit summary - it's described as 'optional', but you should not treat it as such - always leave a brief edit summary, even if it's just 'Rv test edit', or 'Rv unexplained removal of content', or whatever. Use the green one when you think it's a good faith mistake, and the blue one when you're not sure. Only use the red one when you are certain that it is unambiguous vandalism - it saves time, because it leaves a generic edit summary, and all of them will take you directly to the talk page of the person you have reverted, to allow you to use the 'Warn' option to give them a warning. (Also note that you can use the brown "restore this version" button when you need to revert edits by multiple users.)

nice job - next section below. -- puddleglum  2.0  22:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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


 * Please answer the following questions:
 * Why do we warn users?
 * WP:AGF; someone might not think their edits would show up to everyone in the world.
 * that's one reason - I would say that the main reasons are to
 * 1) tell the vandal that what they're doing is wrong and unhelpful.
 * 2) create a sort of paper trail for admins if the vandal gets reported to AIV or elsewhere.


 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
 * When one consistently vandalizes, and there's obviously bad intent behind the edits.
 * again - that's part of it, but not all. A 4im could be given when there is a very offensive edit, such as defamatory content to a BLP. Also, its given when an editor is consistently vandalizing and hasn't been warned.


 * Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it? (Hint - read the link before answering!)
 * They should all be substituted except if it's on the user page. One would substitute by placing "subst:" before the template/page name.


 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * Report the user to WP:AIV.


 * Sorry I haven't responded in a couple of days. Thanks, Thanoscar21 (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * awesome - next section below. -- puddleglum  2.0  00:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. For each revert/warning please fill in a line on the table below. If you have trouble with the wikimarkup, tell me and we'll get it sorted out.

I've filled out the table. Thanks! Thanoscar21 (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Great job ! Please do note that Twinkle supports different kinds of warnings; if someone is blanking, you give them the {uw-delete} warning etc. Maybe be more specific in your warnings for the future, but everything else was fine, so let's move on! -- puddleglum  2.0  14:34, 19 May 2020 (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. You can use the Twinkle menu to request page protection or speedy deletion (the RPP or CSD options).

Protection
Please read the protection policy.


 * In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
 * In articles (usually BLPs) that are consistently vandalized by new/IP users.
 * ✅ although remember it's not limited to BLP's.


 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?
 * Articles that are seldom edited, and perhaps are BLPs.
 * ✅ assuming "edited" means vandalized.


 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * Templates, articles with an inordinate amount of edit warring from 30/500 users, and vandalism from 30/500 users.
 * ✅ It's usually very temporary.


 * In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
 * For low-quality/useless articles that keep on being recreated. It's also used for generic names, such as "Random Article", "Deletion log", etc.


 * In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
 * Only in the most severe cases of vandalism.


 * Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request at WP:RPP below. (Note - it might take you a while to come across a circumstance where this is required - we can continue with the next section of the course before you do this, but when the need arises please post here and ping me).
 * [| RPP request]

I've finished it. thanks! Thanoscar21 (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It's been accepted and it's been placed on semi-protection for 2 days. Thanks, Thanoscar21 (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice job ! Sorry I missed your ping, I get lots. If I don't add a section or reply within a day, feel free to come and tell me on my talk page, chances are I just missed your ping. Next section below. Cheers! -- puddleglum  2.0  15:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.


 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?
 * When it's clear nonsense, advertising, a hoax, or in a different language.

Speedy deletion examples
In past iterations of this course, students have been asked to go out and actually tag pages for deletion, but with the introduction of WP:ACPERM, the amount of straight vandalism that gets created directly in mainspace has reduced dramatically. As such, I'm going to ask you to say how you would act in a set of hypothetical scenarios. What would you do if you saw the page listed in each scenario? Note that not all scenarios may warrant speedy deletion.

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.
 * Scenario 1
 * I would tag it for speedy deletion using A7, and it also violates WP:BLP.

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.
 * Scenario 2
 * I'd tag it for speedy deletion using U5.
 * ✅ also G11 would work.

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.
 * Scenario 3
 * A9 and A7
 * ✅ I'd use A7.

A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content: Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame 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. I've borrowed his example here. Hint: Try Google searching a few key terms from this short article.)
 * Scenario 4
 * A9, I guess? I'm not too sure on this one.
 * This is tricky - A9 actually wouldn't work, as the claim that he is part of a Hall of Fame would indicate notability. It's tricky, but actually, I think a redirect to The Nice would be best.

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. Would your answer be the same if it didn't state "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom?
 * Scenario 5
 * G12, and my answer would be the same.
 * ✅ for the first part - can you answer the second question?

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.
 * Scenario 6
 * A2
 * you could also throw a translation tag on it, that might be better.

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
 * Scenario 7
 * A3.
 * undefined

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?
 * Scenario 8


 * Well, a userpage is a userpage, so no deletion here. However, it'd be a G2 if it was a mainspace draft.
 * ✅ again - can you answer the second part?

I've answered the questions. Thanks, Thanoscar21 (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should be more specific: would you mind providing what criteria you would delete a page under? If something about this doesn't make sense, feel free to talk, this is the section I had the most trouble on in my CVUA course. Cheers, -- puddleglum  2.0  18:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand. Can you please explain it further? Thanks! Thanoscar21 (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, so basically, every CSD criteria has a corresponding letter and number; criteria that apply only to articles begin with A, articles that apply to userpages begin with U, and general criteria begin with G. For this course, we will only focus only on the general criteria, as counter-vandalism will not involve anything in the other sections. The numbers simply help keep track - the first general criteria is G1, which applies to pages containing only patent nonsense, G2 is for test pages, G3 is for obvious vandalism or hoaxses, and so on. You can view a full list at WP:CSD. Does this make sense? -- puddleglum  2.0  23:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I understood. Thanks, Thanoscar21 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed your ping, I've graded your answers now. Please note the concerns I had above - after those are addressed we can move on. Cheers, 23:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Completed. Thanks, Thanoscar21 (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

both of them are correct, lets move on! -- puddleglum  2.0  00:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Revision Deletion and Oversight
Please read WP:Revdel and WP:Oversight.

Occasionally, vandalism will be so extreme that it needs to be removed from publicly accessible revision histories - the criteria for these are described in the articles above. Revision deletion hides the edit from anyone except admins; oversight provides an even greater level of restriction, with only oversighters able to see the comments. The threshold between the two is quite fine - I've been on the wrong side of it a few times. If you are in doubt as to whether revdel or oversight is required, the best bet is to forward it to the oversight team - whoever reviews it will be able to make the decision and act on it.


 * If you believe an edit needs to be revision deleted, how would you request that?
 * You'd go to WP:REVDELREQUEST, or if there's sensitive information, you'd email an admin willing to do it.
 * WP:REVDELREQUEST is more instructions to follow, not a place to request. Email is probably the best way to request revdel, but there's actually also an IRC channel for requests, which you can find at the revdelrequest section.


 * If you believe that it's so serious it needs oversight, how would you request that?
 * WP:RFO or email an oversighter.
 * as with the above, RFO is a policy, and, same again, email is best but IRC also works.

I've answered the questions. Thanks, Thanoscar21  ( talk,  contribs )  14:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * graded, next section below. BTW, nice new signature, I like it! -- puddleglum  2.0  22:31, 29 May 2020 (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 (note that you can set this to view 500 users rather than the default 50 - I find that easier to scroll through quickly, and the link on my userpage takes you there directly). There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed: Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particular 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 (words like admin, sysop etc), usernames that impersonate other people (either famous people, or other Wikipedians' usernames), 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). If you need more information before deciding what to do, explain what more you need.


 * BGates
 * I mean, this, I think, is fine, since the name could be "Bob Gates", or any other name. If they vandalize and pretend to be Bill Gates, though, they'd be blocked.


 * LMedicalCentre
 * This is a misleading username, so WP:UAA. If however, they're proved to represent that place, they'd still likely be blocked for containing promotional content.


 * G1rth Summ1t
 * Clearly misleading, trying to impersonate an admin. Disruptive.


 * JoeAtBurgerKing
 * Promotional, so block. Maybe place a notice on their talk page?
 * ❌ names like BobatSoandSo Company are OK - names like SoandSo Company aren't ok.


 * JoeTheSysop
 * There's no admin named "JoeTheSysop", so block for impersonation. Disruptive.


 * Than0scartwentyone
 * Block for impersonation. Disruptive.


 * D0naldTrump
 * Block for impersonation, and it's highly unlikely that Trump'd be editing Wikipedia. Disruptive.


 * Yallaredumb
 * Offensive, so a block for them.


 * Oshwaah
 * I don't see anything wrong with this name.
 * ❌ I would see this as impersonation of user:Oshwah - a prolific editor and admin here.


 * WP:NOEMOJI, so no. I'm not exactly sure about the classification, though, whether it'd be disruptive, or offensive.
 * before reporting to UAA, I personally would discuss their username on their talk page - it isn't necessarily disruptive, we've had admins before with emoji username, so as long as they aren't editing disruptively, emojis are probably fine. In spite of all that, a report to UAA probably would still turn out with a block.
 * before reporting to UAA, I personally would discuss their username on their talk page - it isn't necessarily disruptive, we've had admins before with emoji username, so as long as they aren't editing disruptively, emojis are probably fine. In spite of all that, a report to UAA probably would still turn out with a block.


 * Puddleglum20
 * Block for impersonation. Disruptive.

I've answered the questions. Thanks! Thanoscar21 talk, contribs 22:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , nice job, next section coming up. Please do see my notes though, there were a couple incorrect answers. -- puddleglum  2.0  22:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Emergencies
I hope this never happens, but as you participate in counter-vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible that you may come across a threat of physical harm. In the past, we have had vandals submit death threats in Wikipedia articles, as well as possible suicide notes. The problem is, Wikipedia editors don't have the proper training to evaluate whether these threats are credible in most cases.

Fortunately, there's a guideline for cases like this. Please read Responding to threats of harm carefully and respond to the questions below.


 * Who should you contact when you encounter a threat of harm on Wikipedia? What details should you include in your message?
 * Treat all claims as if they were legitimate. I'd send an email to emergency@wikimedia.org. I'd include a diff to the situation.


 * What should you do if an edit looks like a threat of harm, but you suspect it may just be an empty threat (i.e. someone joking around)?
 * I'd still report to emergency@wikimedia.org.
 * ✅ if you have time, maybe throw in a tiny word that it might be an empty threat.

Finished. Thanks, Thanoscar21 talk, contribs 23:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , nice job. This has never happened to me, and it rarely happens, so don't be worried, but its always good to know what to do. Next section below! -- puddleglum  2.0  00:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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


 * Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?
 * Because for trolls, recognition is the award.
 * ✅ yup - don't feed the trolls! -- puddleglum  2.0  02:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you? (Note - this is not a trick question, but it's not a straightforward one. Have a think about it, make your suggestions, and then we'll have a discussion. There isn't necessarily a clear right answer, but I'd be interested to know the factors you'd consider.)
 * A good faith user would usually make a good faith edit. They'd also be less likely to be rude or harassing. A troll usually would vandalize, and would be rude when one tries to confront them.
 * I mean, you'd think that politeness versus rudeness would be a good way of judging, but unfortuantely, it isn't always that simple or reliable. Some good faith editors get extremely cross when they're reverted, as they view their edits as helpful, and may come across as very rude on your talk page or wherever they choose to bring up their annoyances; that doesn't mean they're vandals, it just means they're cross. What I would do is go back and have another look at the edit - is it possible that you made the mistake? If you did, always apologise - we don't want to lose actually helpful users to editors who aren't willing to stand down when they're wrong. If your revert was correct, though, I would then look at the user's contribs overall - are they a vandal come to be annoying, or does it look like a good editor who maybe just slipped up? There's no right or wrong here, use your best judgement, but don't rely on politeness as a guide. If you are convinced they are a vandal, revert, warn and ignore; if you think they're a good-faith editor, then regardless of how rude they have been, try to engage with them courteously. 9 times out of 10 they'll calm down and apologise for their rudeness - if they continue to harass you though, you can always reach out for help to me, an admin, or at ANI in the extreme.

I've finished. Thanks! Thanoscar21talk, contribs 13:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * graded - I apologise for the wait. -- puddleglum  2.0  03:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Rollback
In light of your recent contributions, I expect that if you apply for the rollback permission at Requests for permissions/Rollback, an administrator would be happy to enable it on your account, but first we should demonstrate that you understand what the tool is, and the responsibilities that go along with it.

The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced counter vandalism operatives to revert vandalism with the click of one button, not unlike the "rollback" button that you've already been using in Twinkle. This would give you a new rollback button in addition to the three you've been seeing in Twinkle. The new rollback button is slightly faster than the Twinkle rollback button, but more importantly, having the rollback right gives you access to downloadable counter-vandalism software like Huggle and Stiki.

If you're interested, take a look at our rollback guideline at WP:Rollback and feel free to answer the questions below. The rollback right is not an essential part of this course, so if you're not interested, feel free to say so and we'll skip this section.


 * Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.
 * For blatant, obvious vandalism.


 * Hopefully this will never happen, but it does occasionally. If you accidentally use rollback, what should you do?
 * Use the undo button and state in the edit summary, "Undo accidental rollback"


 * Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?
 * Nevah! That's what Twinkle is for.

Finished. Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 14:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * all correct, I've dropped a note of support at your request. The final exam is below, take as much time as you need, and good luck! Cheers, -- puddleglum  2.0  16:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Final Exam
Please read each of the following questions carefully, and ensure that you have responded fully - some of them ask you to expand on what you would do in different situations. 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.

Part 1

 * 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, having never edited before. Would you treat it differently if they had done the same thing once before?
 * 1st time good faith, a test edit warning level 1, since they've never edited before. 2nd time the blue rollback on Twinkle, summary "Rv test", level 2 warning.
 * ✅ assuming after that you revert as vandalism with escalating warnings, correct.


 * 1) A user adds their signature to an article after once being given a Uw-articlesig warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?
 * Next time a level 2, then level three, level 4, and then WP:AIV. The second time good faith, third and fourth would be vandalism.
 * When an editor does something like that after being warned, revert as vandalism.


 * 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?
 * 1st time good faith if it was their first ever edit (as a test edit), second time disruptive editing warning, and then level 2, 3, 4, and AIV.
 * ✅ I would count that as vandalism the first time, but if you're unsure, its good to AGF.


 * 1) A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
 * First time test edit warning level 1, maybe have a word on their talk page, then level 2, 3, 4, and AIV.
 * ✅ assume its an editing test the first time.


 * 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?
 * Oh, this happens a lot. First time, blanking warning, good faith, then level 2, level 3, level 4, and AIV. If they have a history of positive contribs then first talk with them and try to figure out what's happening. If they have a history of disruptive contribs, then they'd be given warnings without the trying to figure things out. They'd eventually get reported to AIV if they continue.
 * ✅ if it's bad blanking, I usually start with level 2 or 3.

Part 2

 * 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.
 * uw-blank(1, 2, 3, 4, 4im)
 * ❌ Don't give out a 4im warning after level 4., but the warning is correct.


 * 1) A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
 * uw-attempt(1, 2, 3, 4, 4im)
 * ✅ see above and bottom.


 * 1) A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
 * uw-attempt(1, 2, 3, 4, 4im)
 * ❌ it isn't an attempt, I would warn as a test edit the first time and escalate after that.


 * 1) A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
 * uw-vandalism(1, 2, 3, 4, 4im)
 * ✅ but don't do anything with 4im.


 * 1) A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
 * uw-blank(1, 2, 3, 4, 4im)
 * ✅ assuming no 4im.


 * 1) A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
 * uw-test(1, 2, 3, 4, 4im), or if it's not their first, uw-vandalism(1, 2, 3, 4, 4im)
 * ✅ assuming no 4im.

it might be an editing test, I'd AGF. Also, assuming no 4im.
 * 1) A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
 * uw-vandalsim(1, 2, 3, 4, 4im)
 * 1) A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
 * uw-biog(1, 2, 3, 4, 4im)
 * ✅ assuming no 4im.


 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
 * uw-blank4im


 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
 * WP: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).
 * uw-harass(1, 2, 3, 4, 4im)
 * ❌ if you've had numerous problems, I'd bring it to ANI.


 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * uw-image(1, 2, 3, 4, 4im)
 * I'd revert as a test, due to the nature of the image, but that warning would also work.

Part 3

 * What CSD tag you would put on the following articles? (The content below represents the entire content of the article).
 * 1) Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
 * Obvious G11.


 * 1) Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
 * A3 or G2, I'm not too sure.
 * ❌ I would say A7, as there's no indication of importance, the others could be reasonably explained.


 * 1) Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
 * G1.


 * 1) A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
 * G3.
 * ❌ I would csd this is a a blatant hoax - I personally don't see how it's vandalism and offensive ( although it's certainly not helpful)


 * 1) Fuck Wiki!
 * G3 (or G10 on the basis it harasses Wikipedia)
 * ✅ I would say G3.

Part 4

 * 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
 * If they try to create a draft for "The Main Street Band", then it'd be promotional. If they edit constructively, maybe notify them on their talk page.


 * 1) Fartypants
 * It could be seen as disruptive. If they edit constructively, maybe notify them on their talk page.
 * ✅ otherwise, report to AIV or UAA.


 * 1) Brian's Bot
 * If it's not a bot, then report them.


 * 1) sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
 * Clear spam, so report.
 * ✅ if they edit.


 * 1) WikiAdmin
 * Report if they're not an admin, but it's unlikely an admin would have the name, "WikiAdmin"


 * 12:12, 23 June 2012
 * Confusing. Report, though if they edit constructively, maybe notify them on their talk page.


 * 1) PMiller
 * This seems fine, though there used to be a Pmiller, so if they claim to be that person, it'd have to be thoroughly checked.


 * 1) OfficialJustinBieber
 * Report for impersonation. If, however, this was verified, then fine, I guess, but I can't see him constructively editing WIkipedia.
 * ✅ Justin Bieber roast?! :)

All reports go to WP:UAA.

Part 5

 * 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)?
 * Yes, the three revert rule.
 * ✅ yup, be careful!


 * 1) Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
 * AIV, using Twinkle since it automates much of the process


 * 1) Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
 * ANI, Twinkle


 * 1) Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
 * UAA, Twinkle


 * 1) Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
 * ANI, Twinkle


 * 1) Where and how should an edit war be reported?
 * AN3/R


 * 1) Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
 * BLPN

I've finished! Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 19:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * - almost done - here's an extra question just to make sure you understand 4ims. -- puddleglum  2.0  00:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

When and why do you use a 4im warning?
 * A 4im warning is when no prior warning have been issued. It's only for use when no prior warnings have been given, and they've already disrupted 4 times.
 * It should also be used in cases of egregious vandalism, ie very offensive content, especially to BLPs.

Answered. Thanks! Thanoscar21talk, contribs 22:12, 6 June 2020 (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. You completed your final exam with a score of 95%. Well done! -- puddleglum  2.0  19:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

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). :


 * Thank you for spending the time to teach me, I really appreciate it! Thanks! Thanoscar21talk, contribs 22:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)