User:ThePlatypusofDoom/CVUA/Qaei

Always ping me when you are done. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome! Here is where I will help you become a vandal fighter. When I post an assignment, please respond under the assignment (or in a table, if there is one). In some exercises I will ask you to provide "diffs". See Help:Diffs for how to do this.

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 use Lupins and Twinkle for everything. I have got navigation, but I don't use it, and I don't use IRC Channels. Qaei    &#9742;  00:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Okay. When you're ready (and have the necessary permissions), I'll show you how to use some more advanced tools. Your next assignment is below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:38, 12 February 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.

A good faith edit is when a user makes and unconstructive edit on an article whilst having good intentions or 'good faith'. Vandalism is a deliberate act on a Wikipedia article to cause an unconstuctive edit that damages or contaminates information on a page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_Competitiveness_Report&diff=prev&oldid=763387207
 * 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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merida_(Disney)&diff=prev&oldid=763384628

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rapunzel_(Disney)&diff=prev&oldid=763384468  as this is similar to the previous diff, this may be vandalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pontius_Pilate&diff=prev&oldid=763387403
 * Vandalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Angeles_Dodgers&diff=prev&oldid=763386783

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_England_Colonies&diff=prev&oldid=763386131


 * Pinged Qaei     &#9742;  00:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good job! Next assignment is below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:18, 12 February 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 warn users when they have made an edit that violates a policy on Wikipedia. Warning them tells them what they have done wrong and potentially deters them from further making that mistake.
 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

A 4im warning would only be acceptable when a vandalism at a very serious level has occurred. An example would be racism or homophobia.
 * Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?

Yes, you do substitute.
 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?

Report the user to AIV as soon as possible.
 * Please give examples 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.

This is used to warn someone that there edits appear to be vandalism.

Something that is categorized as not vandalism but you don't assume that it was done under good faiths. If it's a lvl 1 warning, that assumes good faith. This is for anything that doesn't have a template about it.

When an image is inappropriate to the specific article or vandalism with an image.

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

Pinged Qaei   &#9742;   21:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Next assignment is below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with trolls
Sometimes, disruptive users will try to harass and annoy you. In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, ignore them, and leave a note at WP:ANI. If they vandalize your user page or user talk page, revert them and ignore them. Please read WP:DENY and WP:RBI.


 * Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

If we give attention to the trolls, this could make them feel like they are causing trouble. If we do this, this will encourage them to continue to troll.


 * How can you tell between a good faith user asking about why you reverted their edit, or a troll trying to be disruptive?

A good faiths editor is not going to be harassing you, but a troll will be harassing you and causing trouble by saying things that could be offensive of violate a Wikipedia policy.

Pinged

You have to sign any posts with a ping, otherwise it won't work. Next assignment is below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh right, sorry about that :P Qaei   &#9742;   21:19, 13 February 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'm finished Qaei   &#9742;   21:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, how does one tell that an IP belongs to a school, mobile or government organisation. Qaei     &#9742;  23:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You can geolocate the IP, and you can tell if it belongs to a company or such. There's a bar on the bottom of IP user talk pages that gives you links. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:45, 13 February 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 (I am not an admin); 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). If you want to report manually, either place a CSD tag on the page, or report at WP:RFPP.

Protection
Please read the protection policy.


 * In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

Frequent vandalism from new and IP users.


 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?

When both good contributions and vandalism from IPs and New users.


 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

When everyone below admin status frequently vandalises a page.


 * In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?

When users repeatedly try to make a bad article. E.g. No notability etc...


 * In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?

When frequent vandalism from IPs and New users takes place. (I'm assuming you mean the vandalism takes place on the talk page.)


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

Can I use a historic request? Qaei    &#9742;  00:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For this, yes, but not for anything else. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Qaei     &#9742;  00:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=762602363 - The request was accepted

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.


 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted? (very briefly, no need to go through the criteria.)

Not entirely sure what you mean.... but when an article fills one of the criteria?


 * Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons) and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmail_forgot_password - CSD because the user violated G11 because of publicising an entity that would require a complete rewrite to be unlisted for CSD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramiyah_estes-brown - CSD because of A7. It was poorly written and was clearly not a remarkable person.

Pinged Qaei     &#9742;  01:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Good job, next assignment is below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:50, 14 February 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 about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).


 * DJohnson

Seems good to me, so I wouldn't do anything.


 * LMedicalCentre

I would report as it could be considered a promotional username. and it implies shared use.


 * ThePlatypusofD00m

I would report as it is clearly impersonating you


 * JoeAtBurgerKing

I would not report as it isn't actually promoting anything. {{check mark{{



I would report because it is confusing, as it is the same as the signature format.


 * 172.295.64.27

I would report as it is confusing, as it is the same as an IP.


 * Bieberisgay

I would report because it is a disruptive and offensive username.


 * JoeTheSysop

I would report as it impersonates an admin. {{check mark}}

{{Ping|ThePlatypusofDoom}} Pinged Qaei     &#9742;  21:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Qaei}} Good job! Next assignment below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:58, 14 February 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?

I would revert the revisions and suppress the edits as soon as possible, to prevent sensitive, libelous information from being available to the public.


 * Someone says that they want to kill themselves on their user page. What do you do?

I would report this to the Wikimedia Foundation ASAP with suppression.


 * A user puts a grossly offensive statement insulting the topic of an article, the article is a BLP. What do you do?

I would have it suppressed, then follow the usual procedure for vandalism. OS isn't usually needed for this, I would go with revdel.

Pinged Qaei     &#9742;  22:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, here's the next assignment. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:26, 14 February 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 is absolutely vandalism, death threats and slurs can never be categorized as good faiths. It is an obvious attempt of homophobia.


 * Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

It violates WP:VAND.


 * Should you automatically report this, or should you give this person a warning? Why?

I would immediately issue a 4im warning and I would report to WMF because the user is using death threats.


 * In what place(s) would you report this? Why? Is revision deletion or oversight needed? Why? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

If user continued to vandalise, I would report down the usual channels to WP:AIV and obviously WMF due to death threats. Oversight might be needed here.

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 is a good faiths edit. The user may not have intended to make this change or it may be a test edit.


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

would be appropriate in this situation.


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

Rollback-AGF (Green) would also be appropriate in this situation.


 * The user now has a level 3 warning on their talk page. They make a vandal edit, would it be appropriate to report this user to AIV? Why or why not?

No, because you need to issue a level 4 warning before you report a user.


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

No, as this would be the first time the user had received a block.


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

The user is has a registered account and is not an IP, so vandal would be the only appropriate option.


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

That the account has only been used for vandalism.

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?

Yes, but you must assume good faiths.


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


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

Yes, as this was the final warning, I would report.

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 revert with neutral as the user has violated A11


 * If you do revert which warning template would you use?

would be acceptable


 * Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?

I would definitely tag for CSD as a violation of A11 which is advertising. This is a copyright violation, tag under G11 (I said "A paragraph copied from a website").


 * Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?

I would report with


 * Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?

It violates the promotional usernames category as the user is promoting Laptops Inc. and it implies shared use.

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". I would tag for CSD and I would apply G10 and maybe G3. I would also blank the page.
 * Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s)? If so, which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?


 * Would you report this user to UAA? If so, What part of the username policy does the username violate?

I would report as it violates the offensive usernames category.


 * 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?

WP:3RR does not apply to vandalism and therefore wouldn't be a violation.

Pinged Qaei     &#9742;  23:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Results
Your score: 21.5/22

Next assignment is below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Other tools
You have rollback. Now, please go to WP:CUV/T and install any tools that you want to use. (I personally recommend Huggle, and STiki can be effective). Please notify me about what tools that you have downloaded below.
 * I sent him a ping on his talk page but he hasn't responded yet. I think he is from the UK too so it nearly midnight here. So I don't have it of yet, but probably either in the next couple of hours or tomorrow I will :D Qaei     &#9742;  23:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have them now, and I installed Stiki and Huggle. Qaei     &#9742;  11:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Great! See below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2017 (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 satisfied with your progress, you will take the final test; passing this will mean you graduate from the CVUA. Good luck!

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

Here you go. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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. What would you do if it was their first warning? What about after that.
 * If the user made this edit for the first time, I would assume good faith and possible notify the user with and revert the edits.  If the user continues to edit like this, the user will be warned with  and the edit will be reverted.


 * 1) A user adds their signature to an article after one being given a Uw-articlesig warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?
 * I would give the user a level one warning for disruptive editing. If the user continues to use the signature, I will issue a level 2 warning for disruption. I will continue to issue disruption warnings if the user continues this behaviour until he stops or I have to report him to AIV.


 * 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?
 * I would assume good faiths the first time the user puts this in an article with a level 1 test edits notification on the users userpage and obviously I would revert the edits. If the user continued to do this I would issue a level 2 warning for vandalism and revert the edits. I will continue to warn the user till he stops or I have to report the user.


 * 1) A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
 * Assume good faiths with a level 1 test edit notification and revert the edits. The second time I would issue a level 2 warning for vandalism and revert the edits. I would continue until the user stops or I have to report.


 * 1) A user removes sources 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?
 * I would review the article to see if the edits were legitimate. I would ask the user why he thought this. If it was a wrong edit, I would issue a level 1 delete notification and revert the edits. If it was the second time, I would give a level two vandalism warning. I would continue until he stopped or I have to report the user.

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.
 * I would issue a level 2 deletion warning if it was the first time. If it wasn't, I would issue the appropriate level of warning
 * 1) A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
 * I would issue a level 2 vandalism, as swearing is completely inappropriate on Wikipedia articles. But Profanity is allowed in Wikipedia articles if it is appropriate, see WP:SHIT.
 * 1) A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
 * I would issue a level 1 test edit notification.
 * 1) A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
 * I would issue a level 3 vandalism warning.
 * 1) A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
 * I would ask for a reason on the users userpage, if no response I would issue a level 1 deletion warning.
 * 1) A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
 * I would issue a level one test edit.
 * 1) A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
 * I would issue a vandalism level one warning.
 * 1) A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
 * I would expect the user to source this, so I would revert and request a source. Issue a lvl 4im warning, as it's a major BLP violation.
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
 * I would issue a vandalism 4im
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
 * I would report to AIV
 * 1) A user blanks your userpage and replaced it with 'I hate this user' (you have had a number of problems with this user in the past).
 * I think that reporting this user to ANI would be appropriate.
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * I would revert and assume good faiths with a level one test edits warning.

Part 3

 * What CSD tag you would put on the following articles (The content below is the article's content).
 * 1) Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
 * G11
 * 1) Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
 * A7
 * 1) Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
 * A7 A1 would be better
 * 1) A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
 * A11 .5 points g3 would be better, as it's a hoax.
 * 1) Fuck Wiki!
 * G10 G3

What would you do in the following circumstance:
 * A user blanks a page they very recently created.
 * I would tag for deletion under G7


 * After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
 * I would talk to the user about his intentions, if no response or nothing useful I would issue a level one speedy warning
 * I would talk to the user about his intentions, if no response or nothing useful I would issue a level one speedy warning

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) NikeShoes
 * This username is promotional so I would report.


 * 1) IWANTTOTROLLWIKI
 * The name suggests he is here to vandalise, so I would report for a disruptive username.


 * 1) Brian's Bot
 * Check if it actually is a bot, if not then report for misleading usernames.


 * 1) sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
 * This doesn't violate a criterion, but I would talk to the user. .5 points You could report for indicating an intent to disrupt.


 * 1) Bobsysop
 * I would report this as this is a misleading username.


 * 1) SteveTheAdminSUCKS
 * I would report as an offensive username


 * 1) Justin Stevens
 * This doesn't violate a criterion.


 * 1) OfficialJustinBieber
 * I would report as a misleading username

Part 5
Yes you can. If the vandalism is not obvious. You should report at AIV with an reason and a diff You should report to AIV with a reason or any potential diffs. They should be reported at UAA with the violated criterion. You should report at ANI with a reason. You should report at AN3RR I would report to a oversighter so he can suppress as needed This is ambiguous, so contact an admin, ask them if this should be revdeled. Most BLP violations don't need to be suppressed.
 * 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)?
 * 1) Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
 * 1) Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
 * 1) Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
 * 1) Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
 * 1) Where and how should an edit war be reported?
 * 1) Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?

Part 6 - Theory in practice

 * 1. Find and revert three instances of vandalism (by different editors on different pages), and appropriately warn the editor. Please give the diffs the warning below.
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.167.209.39&action=history Level 1 vandalism
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:174.255.194.182&action=history Level 4 vandalism
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:203.17.235.219 Level 3 vandalism.


 * 2. Find and revert two good faith edits, and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.127.53.76  Could be vandalism, but it doesn't hurt to AGF here.
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2602:306:CC9E:110:AC0A:DD01:5EB0:7D46
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.239.200.121  This could be vandalism, but as the IP undid their own edit and then put it back in, AGF is fine.


 * 3. Correctly report two users (either AIV or ANI). Give the diffs of your report below.
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&type=revision&diff=766710610&oldid=766708093
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&type=revision&diff=766710762&oldid=766710610


 * 4. Correctly request the protection of two articles; post the diffs of your requests below.
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&type=revision&diff=766711580&oldid=766709517
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&type=revision&diff=766713885&oldid=766712656  It wasn't protected.


 * 5. Correctly nominate one articles for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nominations below.
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imvano_Getsemane_Of_God.


 * 6. Correctly report one username as a breach of policy.
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&oldid=766710988

Final score

 * 28/33

84%, above 80 is a pass.


 * Finished, lets hope I passed :D Qaei     &#9742;  18:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations!
You have passed the course. You can now put this template on your user page:. You've done a fantastic job, and teaching you has been a great experience.

The template displays this:

It's been great teaching you, and you clearly have all the skills to be an anti-vandalism patroller. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Its been great fun, and you've been a fantastic teacher. Thank you so much! Qaei     &#9742;  17:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)