User:ThePlatypusofDoom/CVUA/XboxGamer22408

Hello. This is where I will assign you tasks, please comment and ping me when you are done with the task. Thanks! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, first assignment:

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.

1.The difference between good faith edits and vandalism edits is that good faith edits are made by someone who wants to contribute to Wikipedia and simply made a mistake, whereas a vandalism edit is intentionally done to harm Wikipedia. XboxGamer22408 (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Diffs are in all of the examples. -XboxGamer22408 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toubou_people&diff=next&oldid=758542522 - This user changed the population from 500,000 to 750,000 without a source.
 * Good faith:


 * My comment This one might not be good faith. This is probably an example of sneaky date-change vandalism. There's no way to know for sure, but I'd be hesitant to AGF here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planning_for_Burial&diff=next&oldid=758543305 - While these edits could be true, I would like some sources for the information added.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dragon_Ball_Z&diff=next&oldid=758543440 - Not my revert, but a good example of a good faith edit. The user added a paragraph in a foreign language, which I wouldn't call vandalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_Froch&diff=prev&oldid=758500414 - This user replaced a word with another nonsense word. If you look at the diffs, it is clearly vandalism.
 * Vandalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Milk_Duds&diff=prev&oldid=758513403 - This user blanked the entire first paragraph of the article, replacing it with spam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Login&diff=prev&oldid=758201145 - This one involved the user blanking the first paragraph, and then self-promoting(honestly it looks mostly like nonsense to me) in that space.

OK, so I've finished the first assignment. If I am doing everything wrong though, please explain what exactly I'm doing wrong. It just helps immensely if I'm told specifically what I'm doing wrong. XboxGamer22408 (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Good job! I've added your next assignment below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Tools
Here are a couple useful tools to use when patrolling. Tell me if you have installed any of them.

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.

Response
I've installed Lupin's Anti-Vandal tool. XboxGamer22408 (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:13, 6 January 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.

Warnings are used to inform editors when they do something wrong. Warnings are also used to warn users who are vandalizing.
 * Please answer the following questions:
 * Why do we warn users?

A 4im warning would be appropriate when the vandalism is so severe that you can't assume any good faith(such as blanking), or when a level 4 warning has already been issued.
 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
 * Lvl 3 is normally used when you can't AGF at all, and 1 blanking of a page would be lvl 3, max (I would go with level 2). 4im warnings are for really nasty stuff, like racist vandalism, etc. Also, don't use 4im after 4. 4im is an only warning template, 4 is for a final warning, after you're on lvl 4 just report to AIV.
 * Note to self: 4im warnings are only for extremely bad vandalism. Also keep in mind AGF.

Yes, always. You can substitute a template by using. Note: all you need to do is put subst: before the template, like this.
 * Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?

I would give them a level 2 warning for their 2 edits, going up to a 4im if they vandalized again
 * If a user has vandalized twice but has not received any warnings for it, what would you do?
 * Why would you skip level 3? Also, 4im isn't used if there already is a warning template, it's only used once for the most severe vandalism.
 * OK, so instead I would give them a level 3, right?
 * Exactly.

If a user who has recieved a level 4 or 4im warning vandalizes again, I would report them to WP:AIV using Twinkle.
 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?

- Used for the first warning for vandalism.
 * 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.
 * Although you can start at lvl 2 if you think this template doesn't give a strict enough warning for the vandalism, like if you're pretty sure that it isn't good faith

- Used for the first warning when the edit isn't necessarily vandalism, but still isn't an AGF edit.

- Used for the first warning when someone either blanks the page or removes content without any explanation. If it's a complete page blanking, you could start at level 2, especially if they leave an edit summary indicating disruptive intent.

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.

For more information about diffs, see here.


 * 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

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.

-We deny recognition to trolls and vandals because we don't want to encourage them to vandalize Wikipedia, whereas if we make a big deal out of it, they feel that they have power(which they don't) and will continue to vandalize Wikipedia. XboxGamer22408 (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC) -Usually, trolls harass people who revert their edits. A good faith user probably won't harass someone just because they reverted their edit. Also, a good faith user may ask you why you reverted their edit, but they won't be disruptive like a troll would. XboxGamer22408 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?
 * How can you tell between a good faith user asking about why you reverted their edit, or a troll trying to be disruptive?

Can you ping me when you're done with an assignment? Thanks. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'll make sure I ping you when I'm done. XboxGamer22408 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm finished. XboxGamer22408 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Great! I've added the next assignment below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:19, 9 January 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.

Finished. XboxGamer22408 (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's your next assignment. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:58, 11 January 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.

When an article receives constant vandalism from both unregistered users, and new users.  XboxGamer  22408 chat with me 23:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

When an article receives persistent vandalism (or if someone violates WP:BLP, or violates copyright).  XboxGamer  22408 chat with me 23:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?

It's for when there is vandalism by new users and IPs, but there's also constructive new user/IP edits. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC) When an article receives persistent vandalism from autoconfirmed users, or edit warring between autoconfirmed users.  XboxGamer  22408 chat with me 23:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * That used to be true (but not so much in the case of edit warring, but on occasion), but now if they're autoconfirmed, we can just use extended-confirmed protection, if they're not extended-confirmed. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

If there have been repeated attempts to create a non-encyclopedic article.  XboxGamer  22408 chat with me 23:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?

A talk page should be semi-protected if it has persistent vandalism, and the vandalism is bad enough to warrant semi-protection. XboxGamer  22408 chat with me 23:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?

I have no idea if I'm doing this properly... Diff from WP:RPP: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=761261090#John_O.27Flynn This is incorrect, but you have made correct requests as well (to Pérez and Soda.) ThePlatypusofDoom  (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Correctly request the protection of one page; post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

The end result was that the user got blocked, and the page wasn't protected.  XboxGamer  22408 chat with me 00:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, finished with that.  XboxGamer  22408 chat with me 00:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Next assignment is below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.

In short, a page should be speedy deleted if it meets the criteria for speedy deletion, listed at WP:CSD.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 20:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fuwafuwa&oldid=762417618 - Tagged for speedy deletion for an unremarkable band(A7).  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 18:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC) this was declined.
 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted? (very briefly, no need to go through the criteria.)
 * Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons) and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SkyWeb_Informatics_LLC&oldid=762423383 - Tagged for speedy deletion under G11 for a page created to promote a company(it was also created by a user called SkyWeb, which is the name of the company being promoted).  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 18:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC) I'm not sure about this one, but it could potentially meet the criteria.

Finished with this.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 18:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, see below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:56, 28 January 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).

Wouldn't report, as it is probably the person's name.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 19:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Report, as a promotional username.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 19:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC) not promotional, but it signifies a shared account. Report, as it impersonates your username.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 19:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC) This one is tough. I wouldn't report, as long as they aren't making promotional edits. If they were, then I would report.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 19:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC) This username is allowed under the username policy, it's not promotional. I'd probably ask the user if they could change their username, as the four tildes are generally used for signing your posts.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 19:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC) and report if no response. Report, as it could be confused for an IP user.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 19:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Report, as it is offensive and disruptive.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 19:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Report, as the user could be confused for an Administrator.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 19:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * DJohnson
 * LMedicalCentre
 * ThePlatypusofD00m
 * JoeAtBurgerKing
 * 172.295.64.27
 * Bieberisgay
 * JoeTheSysop

I'm finished with the assignment.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 19:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice! I've added another assignment. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:15, 28 January 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.

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.

Honestly, I don't know. Wikipedia doesn't have any age guidelines, but I would probably send them a message telling the user not to disclose their name or age. As for the edits, if they were good faith edits, I would do absolutely nothing, however, if we're talking about mostly vandalism (that is common in school computer labs), and the user has already been warned at level 4, I would probably report to AIV, just like I would with any other user.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC) As the user is a minor, this might need to be oversighted. If their name was more unique (and so they were more easily identifiable), oversight would be absolutely needed. Report it to the Wikimedia Foundation immediately.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC) And request oversight as well. Revert the edit, and then warn them with the appropriate warning(probably 4im if it is that bad).  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC) get an admin to revision delete it, criteria 2, but you absolutely should revert and warn.
 * You see a userpage that says "I am Steve Johnson, I am 11 years old (and all the other edits seem like ones that an 11 year old would make). What do you do?
 * Someone says that they want to kill themselves on their user page. What do you do?
 * A user puts a grossly offensive statement insulting the topic of an article, the article is a BLP. What do you do?

Finished.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Good job! You should probably look over questions 1 and 3, though, and read the Oversight and Revdel policies. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:01, 28 January 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. I would consider this obvious vandalism, as homophobic slurs and death threats have no place in an encyclopedia.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC) WP:VAND.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Automatic 4im warning for vandalism. I can't AGF on this edit, as inserting homophobic slurs and death threats is quite severe.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC) You also want to report this to the WMF, as it's a threat of harm. 3/4 points for this question
 * Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?
 * Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?
 * Should you automatically report this, or should you give this person a warning? Why?
 * In what place(s) would you report this? Why? If the user did it again, WP:AIV. Is revision deletion or oversight needed? Why? Revision deletion is needed to remove the bad revision, as per #2 of WP:CRD.   XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Scenario 2
You see a new account called "Hi999" that has added random letters to one article. I would AGF, however if they did it a second time, it would be vandalism.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Rollback-AGF, as it appears to be a test.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC) I would wait for the user to have a level 4 warning before reporting to AIV.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC) No, as indef. blocks aren't good for first time offenses.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC) vandal, as it isn't an IP.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Vandalism-only account, vandalism after final warning.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?
 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?
 * Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?
 * 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?
 * If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?
 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?
 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?

Scenario 3
Yes, using Twinkle's Rollback-AGF function.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Uw-biog1.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Yes, as a level 4 warning is considered like a final warning.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * 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?

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. Yes, you should revert, with the neutral option.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Uw:advert1.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC) although a lvl 2 warning would also be fine here. Yes, under G11 and G12.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Yes, Uw-username.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Yes, because the username is promotional.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option (agf, neutral, vandalism) would you use?
 * If you do revert which warning template would you use?
 * Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?
 * Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?
 * Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?

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". Yes, under G10.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Yes, because their username is offensive, and disruptive.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC) No, because the edits are vandalism.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * 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?

Finished.

Results
Your score: 21.75/22

Fantastic! You're almost done, you have 3 more tasks to go. See below for the next one. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:28, 30 January 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.

Rollback can be used for reverting vandalism, your own edits, to revert widespread edits that are judged to be unhelpful to Wikipedia, revert edits made by banned users, and revert edits in your userspace. It can't be used for anything else.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 02:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

OK, I applied for rollback at WP:PERM. Here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=763054073  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 02:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: Rollback request was denied. I'll try reapplying in a few weeks when I have more experience.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 04:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Finished assignment, although I was unable to get rollback granted.  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 22:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, here's another assignment: ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:27, 3 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.

- 3 days left. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's your final exam. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

GOOD LUCK!

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.
 * I would AGF on the first edit, revert it and give them a Uw-test1 warning. If they did it again, I would revert the edit, and give them a Uw-vandalism2 warning. Not sure if I'd want to call this a good faith edit or a vandalism edit. I would assume it was a test edit the first time, and vandalism if done after the first warning.  Great answer!
 * 1) A user adds their signature to an article after one being given a Uw-articlesig warning. What would you do the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?
 * I would probably give the user a Uw-disruptive1 warning(as it doesn't seem like vandalism to me, but still not a test edit). If the user continued to add their signature to articles, I would escalate the warnings until I'm forced to report to AIV. Not exactly a good faith edit, but not vandalism, as I'm sure the user isn't intentionally acting in bad faith, and might not know not to sign additions to a regular article.
 * 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'd AGF on their first edit, give them a Uw-test1 warning and then on the next edit, give them a Uw-vandalism2 warning. If the user continued to vandalize, I would escalate the warnings until I have to report to AIV.
 * 1) A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
 * I assume AGF, revert the edit and give them a Uw-test1 warning. After that, I would escalate the warnings until I have to report to AIV.
 * 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?
 * If they made constructive edits, I would leave a message on the user's talk page asking the information removed was "wrong". After that, I would give them a Uw-delete1 warning, escalating if they did it again. For a user that has a history of disruptive edits, I would give the user a Uw-delete1 warning, escalating the warning level if they did it again.

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.
 * A delete warning, with the level depending on whether the user has any yet. I usually start at level 2, as blanking is quite severe.
 * 1) A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
 * A vandalism level 1 warning.
 * 1) A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
 * It doesn't appear that there is a specific warning for this, so I'd discuss it with the user. this could be a test edit or vandalism.
 * 1) A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
 * A vandalism level 3 warning.
 * 1) A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
 * A uw-delete warning, the level depending on if they had done it before, it could be a test edit.
 * 1) A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
 * A test level 1 warning, going to vandalism warnings if done again(or done previously)
 * 1) A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
 * A vandalism level 1 warning, if they haven't previously made this edit.
 * 1) A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
 * I'd check if he has actually been arrested. If he hasn't been arrested, I'd give them a uw-biog4im warning.
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
 * A blanking level 4im warning.
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
 * Report the user 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).
 * Report the user to ANI.
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * Probably a test edit(might be a placeholder for a new image), so I'd discuss it with the user.

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)!
 * CSD G11.
 * 1) Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
 * CSD G11 and/or A7
 * 1) Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
 * CSD A1 and A7.
 * 1) A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
 * CSD G3 and A11.
 * 1) Fuck Wiki!
 * CSD G3 and G10

What would you do in the following circumstances:
 * A user blanks a page they very recently created.
 * Tag the page under CSD G7.


 * After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
 * I would re-tag the article, and then give the user a Uw-speedy1 warning. If they did it again, I would escalate the warnings until I have to report to AIV. .5 points I would leave them a message on their talk page first, as if they don't want the tag on the page, they might not want it deleted.

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
 * Promotional username, report at UAA.
 * 1) IWANTTOTROLLWIKI
 * Most likely a disruptive user, report at UAA.
 * 1) Brian's Bot
 * Misleading username, report at UAA.
 * 1) sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
 * Confusing usernames don't violate the username policy, I would discuss it with the user. This might be reportable by showing intent to disrupt, however.
 * 1) Bobsysop
 * Misleading username, as it could be mistaken for an admin. I'd report it at UAA.
 * 1) SteveTheAdminSUCKS
 * Offensive and disruptive username, report at UAA.
 * 1) Justin Stevens
 * Doesn't violate the username policy(probably the user's real name).
 * 1) OfficialJustinBieber
 * Report, as it is definitely misleading, and probably promotional too.

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, you can, especially if the vandalism isn't obvious.
 * 1) Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
 * WP:AIV, with an explanation and diffs.
 * 1) Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
 * WP:ANI, with an explanation. If the admins can't sort it out, take it to arbcom. Arbcom's only used when all other venues to resolve it have been tried, though.
 * 1) Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
 * WP:UAA, with an explanation.
 * 1) Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
 * WP:ANI, with an explanation.
 * 1) Where and how should an edit war be reported?
 * Edit wars should be reported at WP:AN3RR, with diffs.
 * 1) Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
 * They should be reported privately to either admins or oversighters(depending on the severity). They can revdel or oversight the information.

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) Level 2 warning on Washing.
 * 2) Level 1 promo warning.
 * 3) Level 4 vandalism warning.


 * 2. Find and revert two good faith edits, and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.
 * 1)  .5 points This is probably not a test edit, this might be his actual number, uw-unsourced could also work.
 * 2)  .5 points He was most likely trying to use the template , it wasn't a test edit.


 * 3. Correctly report two users (either AIV or ANI). Give the diffs of your report below.
 * 1) Vandalism after final warning.
 * 2) Vandalism after final warning.


 * 4. Correctly request the protection of two articles; post the diffs of your requests below.
 * 1)  It hasn't been protected yet, but it does look like the article should be protected.
 * 2)  same as above.


 * 5. Correctly nominate one articles for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nominations below.
 * 
 * 6. Correctly report one username as a breach of policy.
 * 1) Obvious violation of the username policy.

Now that you are done, ping me and I'll grade this. Finished!  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 23:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Final Score
 31/ 33.

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 have proven that you have the skills of an anti-vandalism patroller. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for teaching me! I've learned so much throughout this process. I really appreciate it!  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 00:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)