User:Qaei/CVUA/ImmernochEkelAlfred

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 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. Remember to ping messages to me, for example when you have finished. don't ping every answer to me.
 * How to use this 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.

Tools
Before we start, I wanted to show you some useful tools for counter-vandalism work which can be used by any editor. You can use all of these, none of these, or some of these. I don't mind, these links are just for your convenience. You may have already installed some of these in the past.

Twinkle
Twinkle is a very popular gadget which is helpful for a variety of tasks. To install it, go here and tick the box that says Twinkle. Then scroll down to the bottom of the page and click "save". When you refresh the page, a "TW" tab will be available on every page, next to the "More" tab. Scrolling over the TW tab will show a list of modules you can use on the particular page. Twinkle has a large number of useful modules, including but not limited to, one which can be used to warn users, one which can be used to request page protection, one which can be used to suggest a page is deleted, and many many more helpful features. It also adds a non-admin "rollback" feature on all diff pages. I highly suggest you enable Twinkle, as it's incredibly useful and poses no risk of harming your account.

Lupin's Anti-vandal tool
Lupin's Anti-vandal tool is extremely helpful for monitoring recent changes in real time. To install it, simply add the following to your common.js. Refresh the page and you'll find 5 new links on your toolbar (on the left side of the page, underneath "interaction"). These links can be used to better monitor recent changes for possible vandalism.

IRC channels
IRC is an internet chat program. There are several channels on IRC that can be used to monitor vandalism. is probably the most useful. Visit IRC/Tutorial for information on how to connect to channels.

Navigation Popups
Navigation popups allow you to hover over links and see a brief preview of the page being linked to. One feature of navigation popups is that when you're at recent changes and hover over "diff" links, you'll have the ability to revert the most recent edit, useful for undoing vandalism. To install navigation popups, go here and tick the box that says Navigation popups. Then scroll down to the bottom of the page and click "save". Refresh the page and navigation popups will be enabled.

'''Now that you've read these, reply below with which scripts you installed/what you signed up for. I don't mind how many you installed, or if you installed none, it's just so I know and can set tasks using those scripts. Also note that there are many more advanced scripts out there, but they'll only be available to you when you have more experience.'''


 * I am regularly using Twinkle for reverts and warnings, though on most of the UI I have only had a short glance (since I never had any need to use them). For the ones I do use, I think I have already engaged what could be called a routine. I have not used any of the other tools yet. - Immernoch EkelAlfred (Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 21:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Great! Please remember to ping me with  Qaei     &#9742;  12:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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


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


 * 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
 * A good faith edit was done with the intention to improve an Article or other resource, however, because of lack of knowledge of the technical workings or the proceedings of Wikipedia, it caused more disruption than it brang quality. In a good faith edit, I can spot some sense and context to the topic of the article, even though it may be hard to understand. It may also be one that makes perfect sense but somehow broke the layout of the article. Another case in which good faith can be assumed is wrong information that was added, because it seemed sensible or originated from outdated sources. In that case the editor tried to improve the article, not knowing his contribution was incorrect. Generally speaking, a good faith edit would fit into the article, but is in some shape or form appearing disruptive. If the formatting is wrong on a smaller scale, It would be better for you to fix it instead of completely removing it.


 * Razorback (film), 2 March 2017
 * Kadaikanal taluk, 20 February 2017 In this one I wasn't too sure whether good faith or vandalism edit, but in dubio pro reo. If you are not sure, go for good faiths and monitor the user, as you say dubio pro reo.
 * List of military flags, 13 March 2014 This one is old, but it is one I fixed. The issue in this edit is the Red Cross flag. The editor added it with the comment that hospital ships would bear it. Although I can see a good faith in that edit, it is factually incorrect, since the Red Cross is not to be found on a military flag and is not exclusive to Ukrainian ships. It is a protective sign and does not relieve from the duty of a ship to display its nationality. Overall the edit is not unhelpful, but that particular addition is.


 * Vandalism
 * Vandalism is an edit done with the intention to disrupt Wikipedia. It is usually found in the shape of nonsense (content-wise or keyboard spamming), obviosuly false information (often in a defamatory manner) or straight-up page blanking. The latter may turn out to be a more sensitive matter, since blanking can occur as a contributive edit (checking the edit summary is essential), or may be a measure of desparation to remove defamatory, incorrect or unlawful content.


 * Wilmington Grammar School for Girls, 19 April 2017 This one was heavily vandalized that day. A variety of heads were added and the colours changed a few times.
 * Bust of Pope Paul V, 3 March 2017
 * EHCL, 16 April 2017

(I'll add the edits soon) - Immernoch EkelAlfred (Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 18:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Done! - Immernoch EkelAlfred (Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 15:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Great work, the next exercise is underneath Qaei     &#9742;  19:52, 16 April 2017 (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?
 * We want to inform users about their edits being removed and give them a guideline on how to improve their editing. Twinkle warnings have the advantage of linking the procedure or behaviour in question to its guideline, giving especially good faith editors a resource on how to do it right. We want to help users improve, not lock out those we don't like.


 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
 * Casually speaking: When somebody REALLY f*cked sh*t up. An edit that is deeply and obviously intentionally disrupting the working of Wikipedia justifies a 4im.


 * Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?
 * I do it by writing . It makes the template stay as it is, should the main resource for the template change. Apparently I should, one reason being that an ever-changing template would be a nuisance in a discussion (especially if it's a warning), but also because otherwise some templates either wouldn't work at all or would break with time.


 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * Move my mouse to the top right corner of the user (or discussion) page, click "TW", select "ARV" in the dropdown menu, fill out the fields of the popup, tick "Vandalism after final (4 or 4im) warning" and click "Submit Query". This answer is assuming that an editor is 100% dependent on Twinkle.


 * 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.


 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.


 * The Manual of Style is a guideline to a uniform set of text use, reflecting what patterns editors should use e.g. for dates (DD/MM/YYYY or MM/DD/YYYY or DD Month YYYY etc), abbreviations ("U.K.", "U. K." or "UK"), when to use italic or bold text and so on and so forth. If an editor grossly ignores this convention in a way that makes the article hard ot understand, I can warn the editor with this friendly message.


 * Information orange.svg Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you.


 * Articles about living persons are an especially sensitive topic in Wikipedia, since a broad majority of visitors (of whom there are millions) will unquestionably believe what they read here, which includes controversial information. Adding false information, say, rape accusations, religious or political affiliations, etc. here can easily destroy a real person's life. As such, should I come across an edit that adds controversial information which doesn't qualify as nonsense, but isn't reliably sourced I remove it and warn the editor with this template.


 * Information.svg Hello, I'm ImmernochEkelAlfred. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
 * Sometimes users edit articles to promote themselves or advertise for their business. Wikipedia however is not a place for advertising, thus this warning will be placed on that user's talk page.

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

What is "TheQ Editor's Comment" in the header of the grid meant to mean? - Immernoch EkelAlfred (Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 20:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, that's for me. Qaei     &#9742;  20:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that during the next two weeks I have my final exams, so don't worry about me not being too active on Wikipedia. I still need to determine 2 editing tests and get another case to bring to AIV, which might take a bit of time. I've got three of my four exams next week so next weekend I hope to get it done. - Immernoch EkelAlfred (Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 23:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Absolutely no problem. Qaei     &#9742;  23:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd say I'm done. I'm a bit unsure about the edit tests and whether some of the other reverts I undertook may possibly have been edit tests. - Immernoch EkelAlfred (Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 18:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait a sec, I f*cked up with the last template. - Immernoch EkelAlfred (Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 18:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, that was it, I typed "|" instead of ":" after "subst" - Immernoch EkelAlfred (Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 19:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice work, next assignment below Qaei     &#9742;  19:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding some wrong levels of warning: It did occasionally happen that when I started writing the warning, it said I was creating the page and when the page showed up, someone else had written one in the meantime. Sometimes I adjusted my warning level, but quite often I probably didn't even notice. Should I check for this case as a routine? - Immernoch EkelAlfred (Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 19:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think that that will help you, then you go for it. Qaei     &#9742;  19:59, 8 May 2017 (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?
 * Trolls and vandals often act in order to gain recognition or experience power or authority. Some may perceive an interaction as a reward and thus be positively reinforced in their disruptive behaviour. The aim of counter-vandalism work is not to punish or attack vandals but to stop vandalism, thus motivating a vandal or troll is avoided as much as possible.


 * How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?
 * A good faith user's message will show one or more of the following criteria
 * It is written without insult or threat. The editor may very well be upset about my revert but should not be attacking.
 * It adresses the article and edit and not my person.
 * It contains a request for help or improvement.
 * It admits that the user whose edit I reverted is having difficulties with Wikipedia's technical workings or its guidelines.
 * The lack of the latter two does not necessarily indicate the presence of harassment or trolling, point n° 2 may indicate it (though an upset user may just as well engage against my person), n° 1 usually defines harassment.

Done. - Immernoch EkelAlfred (Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 20:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Qaei     &#9742;  15:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

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


 * Shared IP - For general shared IP addresses.
 * ISP - A modified version specifically for use with ISP organizations.
 * Shared IP edu - A modified version specifically for use with educational institutions.
 * Shared IP gov - A modified version specifically for use with government agencies.
 * Shared IP corp - A modified version specifically for use with businesses.
 * Shared IP address (public) - A modified version specifically for use with public terminals such as in libraries, etc.
 * Mobile IP - A modified version specifically for use with a mobile device's IP.
 * Dynamic IP - A modified version specifically for use with dynamic IPs.
 * Static IP - A modified version specifically for use with static IPs which may be used by more than one 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:
 * OW for when the messages are deleted from the talk page.
 * Old IP warnings top and Old IP warnings bottom for collapsing the user warnings and leaving them on the talk page.
 * Warning archive notice 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:").

You don't need to do anything here, just tell me when you have finished reading this. I've read through it. - Immernoch EkelAlfred (Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 16:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Great, next assignment below. Qaei     &#9742;  20:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion
Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only an administrator can protect or delete pages; however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion or request protection. If you have Twinkle installed, you can use the Twinkle menu to request page protection or speedy deletion (the RPP or CSD options).

Protection
Please read the protection policy.


 * In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
 * A semi-protection should be issued when a site is being acutely vandalized by multiple unregistered users, since those will no longer be able to edit the article. Registered users however are still able to contribute. Users who are not autoconfirmed may not edit either.


 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?
 * "pending changes level 1" is outdated. Should I just write what pending changes protection is for?
 * Yes, sorry, please do. Just an FYI, for a ping to be sent, you must sign it Qaei     &#9742;  20:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A page should be pending changes protected if it is being heavily vandalized by multiple new or unregistered users. It allows confirmed users to continue editing, while edits by the former are not visible to the general public until reviewed by a pending changes reviewer.


 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * If a page is subject to vandalism or especially large scale edit wars, it should be fully protected. Full protection is also to be used for frequently viewed or used pages, such as the main page or important templates.


 * In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
 * If a site in itself is in no way possible to be contributive or encyclopedic and has been repeatedly recreated despite being of such nature, it can be blocked from creation.


 * In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
 * A talk page can be semi-protected to combat spamming or harassment by unregistered users trying to interfere with a constructive discussion.


 * Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.
 * I might just be "unlucky", but in the about 200 cases of vandalism I have dealt with so far I have only experienced one instance where I would have requested a page protection, though someone else was quicker than me. If you look a few tasks up: Wilmington Grammar School for Girls. I have been regularly doing RCP stuff for the past few days and I haven't run across any case where RPP would have helped. Do you mind if we just keep this task open and I fill it in when I some time run into an RPP case? -- Immernoch EkelAlfred (Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 21:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah sure, fine. I didn't get that ping for some reason. Qaei     &#9742;  17:15, 24 May 2017 (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?
 * A page should be speed(il)y deleted, if it grossly violates article guidelines and is obviously and grossly unencyclopedic. I once ran across an article, probably written by the person in question himself, saying "he is a very talented man" and always had a destiny. Really a comedy to read. I was a bit too slow though, someone else put it up for speedy deletion.


 * 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.


 * 4P Corporation, 11 May 2017, A7, well, the speedy deletion was undertaken too fast for me to get a diff of the request, but here's the deletion log...


 * NKGALLERY.CF, 11 May 2017, G11, somehow this one was deleted... twice? idk...

Are you finished? Qaei    &#9742;  20:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Now I am :P - Immernoch EkelAlfred (Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 08:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Nice Job! Qaei    &#9742;  19:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

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


 * DJohnson
 * Nothing. It's a short for a real name, which is allowed. One may think that it is false representation as Dwayne Johnson, but there are so many people out there by the surname of Johnson and a first name starting with D.


 * LMedicalCentre
 * I'd notify them on the talk page. This name promotes a business, however since it is not very precise about what company, I'd discuss it on their talk page. It could also imply shared use.


 * Fuqudik
 * Straight up report, offensive/disruptive name.


 * ColesStaff
 * Again, warning on their talk page, since the name is a position in a company. Again, It could also imply shared use.


 * (I like this one) Warning on the talk page, since it interferes with the technicalities of Wikipedia.
 * (I like this one) Warning on the talk page, since it interferes with the technicalities of Wikipedia.


 * IWANTTORAPEALLYOURARSEHOLES
 * Straight up report, offensive/disruptive username.


 * TheresaMayOfficial
 * Report, impersonation (unless of course, it really is Theresa May, in which case it's CheckUsers' problem, not mine :P) Good answer


 * BlackLivesDontMatter
 * Report, offensive/disruptive username.


 * Iloveplantingtrees2017
 * I don't see anything wrong about this one...


 * 172.295.64.27
 * Notification on talk page, since names must not be or look like IPs.


 * Bieberisgay
 * Report, offensive/disruptive.

"Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why)." Am I right in assuming there is a "do" or "say" missing between "would" and "about" ? - Immernoch EkelAlfred (Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever...) 20:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry ;) Qaei     &#9742;  08:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Done! - Immernoch EkelAlfred (Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever...) 11:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Next one up Qaei     &#9742;  11:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Revision Deletion
Revision Deletion, commonly known as revdel, can be used to delete diffs. Revdel is used for copyright infringements, or serious cases of vandalism. See WP:Revdel and WP:CRD for more information.

Oversight
Oversight, also known as Suppression, is a powerful tool used by a very small number of users on Wikipedia. Oversight allows revisions to be removed from any means of usual access, even administrators can't see it. See WP:OS. Oversight is used in 4 cases: Removal of non-public personal information, Removal of potentially libelous information, either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel; or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision, Removal of copyright infringement, on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel, Hiding of blatant attack names on automated lists and logs, where this does not disrupt edit histories. (A blatant attack is one obviously intended to denigrate, threaten, libel, insult, or harass someone), or hiding vandalism when normal administrator measures are insufficient. Also note that Oversight is sometimes used in hiding the personal information of minors, if it makes them easily identifiable.

Emergencies
As you patrol, you may come across a threat of physical harm to oneself or others. If this happens, Report this to the Wikimedia Foundation immediately.. As the essay WP:911 says: "Notify the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) office staff of the apparent suicide note or claim or threat of violence as soon as it is posted. Foundation staff have been the key responders in prior incidents. Contact can be made by emailing emergency@wikimedia.org, which forwards to several trained staff members who handle these incidents and are available to respond to emergency incidents even outside of normal business hours. This is the preferred method for reporting threats of harm to the Wikimedia Foundation; calling the office or emailing other addresses will simply delay the report from reaching the appropriate staff in a timely fashion. The WMF will take care of locating the user and contacting authorities. The WMF will nearly always immediately acknowledge your email, so that you know they're working on it." Request oversight for any comments like this as well, or if you can't get it oversighted quickly, get an admin to revision delete it, and then email Oversight.


 * Someone outs another user on the other user's userpage. What do you do?
 * Undo the edit, get an admin to revision-delete and request oversight.


 * Someone says that they want to kill themselves on their user page. What do you do?
 * E-mail emergency@wikimedie.org, if somewhat in the same jurisdiction as me contact police (in collaboration with WMF, since I am in Germany, the WMF tends to only supervise the process and let native speakers do the job, as I read in the German equivalent of WP:911), then proceed as above.


 * A user puts a grossly offensive statement insulting the topic of an article, the article is a BLP. What do you do?
 * Revert, warn, AIV report if appropriate, consider requesting oversight (though by "grossly offensive" and "insulting the topic" you are probably referring to a case where oversight is strongly advised).   OS isn't needed, so go with revdel.

Sorry it took me a while. Got my Abitur and sent out my application for university (medicine it is :D), so I was quite busy. - Immernoch EkelAlfred (Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever...) 20:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, good job. Good luck on the progress test. Qaei    &#9742;  16:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Progress
Here's a test so I can measure your progress in this area. After this, we'll move on to more advanced topics. The following scenarios each have multiple questions that are based on WP: VANDAL, WP:3RR, WP: REVERT, WP: BLOCK, WP: GAIV, WP: WARN, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, WP:911, WP:OS, WP:REVDEL and WP:UN. Good Luck!

Scenario 1
You encounter an IP disrupting the article on Homosexuality. They are adding extremely nasty homophobic slurs, and death threats.
 * Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?
 * This would not be considered a good faith edit, since good faith is attributed to edits that were made with the intention and in an effort to improve Wikipedia, but for some reason missed that aim. I do not believe, that "adding extremely nasty homophobic slurs, and death threats." can happen by accident.


 * Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?
 * WP:NPOV. Adding a personal judgement is not a neutral point of view and does not objectively cover the topic. WP:CIVIL may be considered broken, even though it usually related to inter-editor interaction.  WP:VAND


 * Should you automatically report this, or should you give this person a warning? Why?
 * Case differentiation: If the death threats are "just" generalized calls (e.g. "Kill all fags!" or the like) I would give the editor a 4im warning, since it is "just" vandalism. If the death threat in any way, shape or form indicates that an actual act of violence is to take place, this would turn into a WP:911 procedure.


 * In what place(s) would you report this? Why? Is revision deletion or oversight needed? Why? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Same case differentiation as above: If "just" vandalism, AIV, if specific threat WP:911 procedure.  Oversight may be needed

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 may be considered vandalism or an edit test. Depending on the amount of letters added, this may be a targeted attempt to disrupt Wikipedia (in which case it is bad faith), or it may just be "doing something to see what happens", which is pretty much the definition of edit test. 0.5 marks for test edit For the first time, assume good faiths


 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?
 * uw-test1


 * Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?
 * Rollback-Vandal should be used to indicate that I reverted this edit. Since I do not assume good faith, this will not shed an unjustifiedly bad light on that editor. Also it will bring me directly to the talk page to warn the user. Assume Good Faiths, also, don't do things just because it's convinent for you.


 * 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?
 * It would not be appropriate to report the user now. In order for a report to succeed, a proper chain of warnings must have occured. An exception to this is if the user made an edit that would otherwise have warranted a level 4im warning. A vandalism-only-account tag may be appropriate in this case.


 * If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?
 * Yes (though that's more of the admins' realm there) This is ambiguous, but as a rule of thumb, he hasn't been blocked before, so no. But we don't know what the user got his other warnings for, or what he will do, so we can't tell. 1 mark given


 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?
 * Uuuuh... I do it with Twinkle, but since it is a registered user, I'll just assume option 2? Twinkle is good, but you need to know the ways of doing things without it.


 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
 * Vandalism after final warning (level 4 or 4im).

Scenario 3

 * A user is adding unsourced comments to a BLP, but you're pretty sure that this person is acting in good faith. Do you revert?
 * BLP articles have a special status, since any information in there can cause serious harm. As such I do revert, but I inform the editor of the revert and refer them to WP:BLP.


 * What would be an appropriate template to use in this situation?
 * uw-biog1


 * This user now has a lvl 4 warning on their talk page. They add the comment again. Do you report?
 * Yes.

Scenario 4
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 paragraph copied from www.laptopsinc.com). 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 (agf, neutral, vandalism) would you use?
 * I would use the Vandalism option, since there is a clear breach of Wikipedia guidelines, being promotion/advertising. Again, this also brings me directly to the user's talk page to warn them. / Neutral will do, as they are new to the wiki. 0.25 marks given


 * If you do revert which warning template would you use?
 * uw.advert1


 * Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?
 * The article may meet A7 as an unremarkable company. That would have to be determined by the content. It may also be a G11, based on the content, which would not be the case, if it included factual information. However, this would be a G12, unless laptopsinc.com contents would be open source, which I highly doubt.


 * Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?
 * Yes, I would leave them a uw-coi-username.

I would give the user some time to change their username or create another account, as it is stated in the template. If they do not, I would report them for company name and suggestion of shared use.
 * Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?

Scenario 5
You come across an account named "JohnIsAFag". You find that it's created the page "John Simmonds", which reads "John Simmonds is a guy born in 1991. He is still alive today, unfortunately, because he is an idiot. ahsjjdshhsd".
 * Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s)? If so, which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?
 * Yes, I would tag the article with an A7 and G10.


 * Would you report this user to UAA? If so, What part of the username policy does the username violate?
 * Yes, I would report this user for an offensive and disruptive username.


 * The user puts the same insults in a different page 4 times, you have reverted 3 times already. Would another revert be a violation of WP:3RR?
 * No, since 3RR applies only to conflicts between legitimate edits, the users making them having a difference in opinion about the article, and explicitly not to reverting vandalism.

Results
Your score:

Pass

May my test score be as good as my finals scores. - Immernoch EkelAlfred (Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever...) 15:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work, your result gives me the greatest confidence for the final exam. See below for the next part. Qaei    &#9742;  14:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I got a bit of an objection in scenario 1, in the question "Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?". And, vandalism does not actually breach WP:VAND. Obviously, it is the guideline that is applicable, but WP:VAND is about what is vandalism and how to deal with it, it does not prohibit vandalism. - Immernoch EkelAlfred (Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever...) 15:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I just consulted other Wiki guys, who confirmed its status as policy on the English Wiki over IRC :) Qaei     &#9742;  15:55, 25 June 2017 (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.

Rollback part 2
Apply for rollback at WP:PERM, and please show me the diff of you applying.