User talk:Zippybonzo/Training/CVUA/Students/PriusGod

Hello, welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me at my talk page.

Make sure you read through Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.
 * How to use this page
 * 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.

Twinkle
Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.
 * Enable Twinkle (if you haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.


 * Twinkle is enabled. PriusGod (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2023 (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.

The major difference between a good faith edit and a vandalistic edit is the intent - a good faith edit represents a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia, even if it doesn't actually achieve that. A vandalistic effort is made with the specific intent to damage Wikipedia. ✅


 * 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
 * (Note on 3 - I recognize the editor did go on to threaten my life, but I believe they were coming from a positive place at the start) PriusGod (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Vandalism
 * PriusGod (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ very good, I’m impressed so far. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 08:34, 12 July 2023 (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?
 * Warning users serves multiple purposes in different contexts - some users may legitimately not understand that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and warnings may inform them of that. Warnings give problematic users that aren't committed to vandalism the opportunity to learn about policies and possibly turn themselves into helpful, prolific contributors before being blocked outright. Warnings provide a framework such that problem users have a few "strikes" before they're "out." Warnings also allow other users an easier way to examine the warned user's conduct without having to sift through diffs (though they shouldn't be taken completely at face value for that purpose). PriusGod (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
 * Cases of persistent disruptive editing from an IP address that has been repeatedly been blocked, a major "return to form" of a user that has successfully appealed a block, or extreme cases of disruption, vandalism, or otherwise unacceptable editing - blanking multiple pages comes to mind. I recently reported to OS and issued an im4 to a user that was, well, doing something worthy of oversight, as a concrete example. PriusGod (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?
 * Yes, by inserting "subst:" before the template name inside the curly brackets. This prevents the template from being transcluded, and instead substitutes the template call for its contents when the page is saved. PriusGod (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * Report the user to AIV. PriusGod (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 08:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Please give examples (using ) of three different warnings (not different levels of the same warning and excluding the test edit warning levels referred to below), that you might need to use while recent changes patrolling and explain what they are used for.
 * I forgot to explain what they are used for!


 * For an initial nonconstructive/potentially vandalistic edit - the text of the warning itself implies assumed good faith, so while it should be applied primarily to suspected vandals, it is less damaging to good-faith users.
 * For the second instance of someone adding poorly sourced information to a BLP, particularly if the edit is/may be controversial
 * For a new user whose username violates the username policy. (the latter here isn't something I would see when I do RCP since the "probably harmful" ORES filter also only shows edits by new users, but I think it's good to demonstrate my understanding here) Older users with violating usernames tend to have had this discussion before, so it is best practice to avoid templating the veterans not only because of the potential for a perceived slight, but also because they have likely had multiple discussions about their username and if they have not had it changed, consensus is probably in favor of them keeping the username as something of a grandfather clause. PriusGod (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ very good Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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:").

Tools
Recent changes patrol includes a list of tools and resources for those who want to fight vandalism with a more systematic and efficient approach.

What you have been doing so far is named the old school approach. As well as manually going through Special:RecentChanges, it includes undos, "last clean version" restores, and manually warning users.

There are a large number of tool which assist users in the fight against vandalism. They range from tools which help filter and detect vandalism to tools which will revert, warn and report users.

If you would like to use, or learn to use any of the following tools, please leave a comment below;

Twinkle
The first tool I want to mention is Twinkle, it's a very useful and I strongly suggest you enable it (in the Gadgets section of your preferences). It provides three types of rollback functions (vandalism, normal and AGF) as well as an easy previous version restore function (for when there are a number of different editors vandalising in a row). Other functions include a full library of speedy deletion functions, and user warnings. It also has a function to propose and nominate pages for deletion, to request page protection to report users to WP:AIV & WP:UAA (which we'll get to later).

Rollback
See rollback, this user right introduces an easy rollback button (which with one click reverts an editor's contributions. I'll let you know when I think you're ready to apply for the rollback user right.
 * I would like to earn the rollback user right for its use and to use Huggle. PriusGod (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * To be quite honest, with the responses you gave above, you are probably ready to apply for rollback. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 08:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

SWViewer
SWViewer is a tool that allows you to monitor possibly unconstructive changes from multiple Wikimedia wikis, to use it you require the rollback user right.

RedWarn
RedWarn is an incredibly useful anti-vandalism tool, which can be used to accept pending changes, and revert unconstructive edits. RedWarn contains many automation features, such as opening the warn menu and automatically selecting a reason and warning level after reverting.

AntiVandal
AntiVandal is a powerful tool, similar to Huggle, that allows you to revert and warn users with 1 button. Use of this tool requires the rollback user right, or inclusion on its whitelist.
 * This link goes to WikiProject Aviation. PriusGod (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed, my bad. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 08:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Huggle
Huggle is a Windows program which parses (orders them on the likelihood of being unconstructive edits and on the editor's recent history) from users not on its whitelist. It allows you to revert vandalism, warn and reports users in one click, it requires the rollback user right.

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 do what they do not because they have an existential vendetta against Wikipedia (at least not most of the time...) but because they are entertained by inciting reactions from people. Denying recognition starves them of this entertainment and causes them to get bored and leave. PriusGod (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?


 * I've spent enough time on the internet to recognize a lot of the speech patterns of trolls - most people's honest reactions to things tend to have more emotional precision/dynamic range than what trolls are capable of replicating - see the third GF edit I listed above - the guy completely melted down and spent about an hour freaking out about me, culminating in them being blocked for a litany of reasons, including threatening my life. I suspect that is an editor who lacks the temperament to edit well, not someone who is trying to troll, since they would normally go for a pattern of behavior less likely to get them immediately blocked, and more likely to gradually escalate reactions. Similarly, trolls (at least not the ones I've seen) don't tend to say things like "Hey, I saw you reverted my edit, could you explain why?" since they tend to create reactions of honest desire to see someone learn and grow, and trolls are allergic to growing and changing as people. Of course there is a thick band of gray area between those extremes, but there tends to be emotional complexity visible between the lines that trolls can't replicate because they don't know how to imitate it. PriusGod (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ very good, I’ll give you a few more sections now and you can work through them when you get time. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 08:41, 12 July 2023 (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 page is experiencing high-volume but temporary vandalism or edit warring from unregistered or new editors, when for whatever reason it is not realistic to block or otherwise rein in the offending editors, generally because of the number of new and unregistered editors. PriusGod (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?
 * Pending changes protection has some overlap in application to semi-protection, specifically articles that are experiencing vandalism from new and IP users. Pending changes protection can also be added to pages that are experiencing persistent violations of BLP policy and copyright policy. PriusGod (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * Extreme, long-term, and complex content disputes and edit warring involving several editors, especially established ones, in order to end the edit war and force all changes made to the article to be uncontroversial or to have clear consensus established on talk. Very generic file names ("photo," "example") are also protected in order to prevent new files with such names from being uploaded. (Ahhh, I remember when full protection was for heavily transcluded templates, too) PriusGod (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
 * Vandalistic and otherwise inappropriate titles, as well as pages that are repeatedly created and deleted to compel editors that want to make that page to go through RFPP or deletion review. Some very generic file names are salted for the same reasons that others are fully protected. PriusGod (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
 * Talk pages that are subject to major disruption, only in extreme cases as it prevents new and IP editors from participating. PriusGod (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but under which circumstances?
 * I'm not sure what the answer to that question would be other than as above,  based on the protection policy. I should probably have described it as the specific case of  vandalism in which, for whatever reason, it is difficult to block the vandals, because in my experience other types of talk page disruption (PA, POV-pushing, bludgeoning, etc.) are handled by escalating disputes to DR/AN/ANI, or by (partially or completely) blocking or banning the involved users. PriusGod (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 15:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.
 * PriusGod (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 15:55, 19 July 2023 (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 is so problematic that it is self-evident that the page should be deleted, thus the speedy deletion process allows administrators to delete pages without going through the regular deletion process. PriusGod (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * CSD U5 PriusGod (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * CSD G11 PriusGod (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ all good. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 12:03, 15 July 2023 (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
 * This is just someone's name, which is not explicitly prohibited. However, it could be reasonably confused with the name of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson or any other famous person with the first initial D and last name Johnson, so it would be a good idea for this user (if they were not actually The Rock) to indicate on their userpage that they have no relation to the actor and wrestler. If they did not have such an indication, and they were a relatively new user, I would inform them of this situation on their talk page. If they have been deliberately, but credibly, attempting to lead other users to believe that they are actually The Rock, I would warn them with and suggest that he contact the appropriate volunteer response team to prove his identity. If they are transparently not The Rock and have been deliberately misleading other users to believe that they are, I would report them to WP:UAA immediately. PriusGod (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * LMedicalCentre
 * This could conceivably be the name of an organization and in that case, is in violation of the policies against promotional names and names implying shared use. I would check to make sure it is not a non-editing, approved contact role account and if not, leave either or  on their Talk page, depending on their edit history, if it appears to be in good faith.  If they appear to be editing solely for promotional purposes, I would report them to WP:UAA immediately. PriusGod (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fuqudik
 * This username bears a phonetic resemblance to the phrase "Fuck you, dick" and would be considered a offensive or disruptive username. If they appear to be engaging in vandalism, I would report this user to WP:UAA immediately. If they appear to be acting in good faith, I would leave the warning on their talk page and an additional comment explaining why exactly their username is problematic and what they can do to resolve the problem. PriusGod (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ColesStaff
 * This username is in violation of the policy against names implying shared use. If they were editing in apparent good faith, I would leave either of the warnings or  on their talk page. If they were editing solely for promotional purposes, I would report this user to WP:UAA immediately. PriusGod (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This username is in violation of the policies against misleading usernames and usernames that consist of symbols that are not language, because it is the sequence of characters typically used to sign comments. That being said, it could conceivably have been grandfathered in - if they are a particularly old account, I would check their talk page, AN, ANI, and the username RfC archive before taking any action. If they are too new to have been grandfathered, I would warn them using on their talk page. If they were engaging in vandalism, I would report them to WP:UAA. PriusGod (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 172.295.64.27
 * This username is in violation of the policy against misleading usernames because it appears to be an IP address. I would warn a good-faith user with  and report a bad-faith user to WP:UAA. PriusGod (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Bieberisgay
 * This username is in violation of the policy against offensive or disruptive usernames because it appears to be making a homophobic insult to a person named Bieber, most likely Justin Bieber. If the user appears to either honestly believe that Justin Bieber is homosexual, or is referring to themself in a showing of pride, I would warn them with and describe why their username is not appropriate, and how they can defend their position or express their pride in a way that is acceptable. If the user appears to be a troll or vandal, I would report them to WP:UAA immediately. PriusGod (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ all good again. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 19:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ all good again. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 19:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Progress test
Congratulations, now have mastered the "basics" so we can move on. Please complete the following progress test, and I'll tell you what's next.

The following 2 scenarios each have 5 questions that are based on WP: VANDAL, WP:3RR, WP: REVERT, WP: BLOCK, WP: GAIV, WP: WARN, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, and WP:UN. Good Luck!

Scenario 1
You encounter an IP vandalising Justin Bieber by adding in statements that he is gay.
 * Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?
 * I would consider this vandalism, though if the edits were worded carefully and tactfully enough (i.e. if they were not highly obvious vandalism) it may require a softer touch to stay within policy.


 * Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?
 * The major policy would be WP:NOCITE, as it is adding unreferenced material about a living person, and that material has the potential to be contentious.


 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?
 * I would begin with or  depending on the severity of the edits.


 * The user has now added offensive words to the article 3 times. You have reverted three times already, can you be blocked for violating the three revert rule in this case?
 * I doubt it, as if the three reverts all contained inappropriate usage of offensive language, continued reverts would fall under exemption 4 of WP:3RRNO.


 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?
 * Those two templates were merged in 2022. I would use vandal.


 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
 * I would say something along the lines of "repeated BLP vandalism at Justin Bieber past 4th warning." PriusGod (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ good job, very strong knowledge of policy. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 05:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Scenario 2
You see a new account called "Hi999" that has added random letters to one article.
 * Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?
 * I would be wary of vandalistic potential because of the simplistic username and that the edit does not appear to be a serious attempt at a positive contribution, but would treat the first edit as a test edit.


 * 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 regular rollback link, with the reason "Test edits".


 * 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?
 * To my experience, it is best practice to wait until a user goes past a level 4 warning to block, especially if there is a short time between edits and warnings.


 * If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?
 * If the vandalism is serious enough, yes.


 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?
 * These edits were merged in 2022. I would use vandal.


 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
 * I would use the reason "Continued vandalism past 4th warning". PriusGod (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ very good job, I tend to sometimes report them to AIV at level 3 if they are adding slurs or offensive content, but it's really up to you. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 05:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Scenario 3
You see a new account called "LaptopsInc" which has created a new page called "Laptops Inc" (which only contains the words "Laptops Inc" and a few lines of text copied from the company's website). The user also added "www.laptopsinc.com" on the Laptop article. You research Laptops Inc on Google and find that is a small company.
 * Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option would you use?
 * Yes, as it violates WP:PROMO as well as reasons 4 and 5 in WP:ELNO. I would use the regular rollback link with the edit summary "rv promo, inappropriate external link".


 * 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?
 * I would tag the page with Db-g11, because the article would likely contain very little, if any encyclopedic content if it was only copied from the company 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 use . Because their editing concerns multiple articles, instead of using the arguments available on the template, I would leave an additional message describing why both their edit to Laptop as well as their created article are breaches of policy.


 * Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?
 * This depends on what I find in the research - if their company at least passes WP:GNG muster, even if they are a small company, I would wait to gauge their response to the warning. If they respond to the warning by indicating that they will submit a name change request, add a conflict of interest disclosure, and request edits rather than publish them directly, I would not report them. If they instead continue to publish promotional content, or if their company is not notable, I would report them to UAA as a violation of WP:PROMONAME. PriusGod (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ great again. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 19:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Results
Your Score:
 * Perfect, 100%, you're doing really well in this course and I am looking forward to your graduation. :) Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 19:02, 24 July 2023 (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 is permitted in cases of obvious vandalism, one's own edits, edits in one's own userspace, edits that are prohibited by the offending editor's block or ban, and - on that last situation, however, I would not use the rollback tool. Generally, I would perform a manual revert in that case, because it allows me to provide an edit summary, as even if an editor is making multiple low quality edits, if there is any room to assume good faith, it should be taken. Standard rollback is not permitted for any other cases, especially for reverting good quality edits the user simply disagrees with, or low-quality but good-faith edits, as it does not allow for a customized edit summary. One specific case that rollback is explicitly not permitted is when consecutive edits are made by a user with a maliciously disruptive, libelous, or otherwise prohibited username, because the disruptive username will become part of the edit summary, creating needless revision deletion/suppression work. PriusGod (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ correct, though I would've liked it if you mentioned you can use rollback on good faith edits when you have a tool like RedWarn or Ultraviolet allowing you to add a summary. Speaking of RedWarn and Ultraviolet, I've recently switched to UV and quite like it. Next sections coming soon. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 19:04, 24 July 2023 (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 1-3 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 one to three 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 in this section or on my talk page. If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look.
 * ✅ I'm pleased to say, you have done well enough with your Anti-Vandalism that we can skip this section. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 19:07, 24 July 2023 (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.

You are welcome to start anytime, I'd rather you didn't have to look at policies too much during the test, though I don't mind too much.

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (25%)

 * 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 assume good faith, and that the edit was erroneous or a test. Thus, I would issue the warning . For a second offense, I would escalate the warning. If they continue to ignore warnings, I would bring the issue to the Teahouse, for other editors to lay eyes on it and provide the editor with an introduction to the community aspects of Wikipedia and the resources to become a productive editor. If the situation continues without improvement, I would raise the issue at AN, as it is not an urgent or chronic issue appropriate for ANI. If it becomes clear they are acting in bad faith, I would begin to issue warnings from the vandalism line of warnings, and escalate to an AIV report if it continued to be a problem. I will say I don't feel as though I've encountered an editor that needs to be brought to the Teahouse, thus, I don't have any practical experience dealing with good faith editors that lack the competence to interpret talk page warnings. Generally, I have only met editors that are engaging in serious vandalism or recognize their error and move forward after the warning.
 * ✅ good, not sure I'd take them to the Teahouse personally, but it's more of your choice. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * The next time, I would reply to the warning (in order to bring it to the original warner's attention, to get eyes on the situation) with a message explaining why it is problematic. Beyond that, I would issue warnings regarding disruptive editing and continue to escalate as described above - if there appears to be a good-faith misunderstanding, bring them to the Teahouse, report to AN past higher level warnings, and to AIV if it appears to be vandalistic.
 * ✅ good Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * If the article concerns an individual known as John Smith, I would issue an NPOV warning: . If it was in a random article, I would issue a test edit warning: . Beyond that, I would continue to escalate as described above: a second warning, then my behavior would diverge based on apparent good faith or vandalistic intent.
 * ✅ good, I'd probably give an NPOV warning in any case, but again, more of a personal choice than anything. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
 * Since this seems less suspicious than the other mistaken edits before, I would likely issue, the welcome template that notifies the user that their edits appear to be tests, and provides more information about editing.
 * ✅ great. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) A user removes sourced information from an article, with the summary 'this is wrong'. First time, and after that? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions?
 * For the first edit, I would issue the warning . After that, I would issue a second warning and ping the involved editors (if someone else has replaced the content in the intervening time) on the talk page of the article. After that, I would issue the warning, then escalate the issue to the edit warring noticeboard. If the editor has a positive history, I would avoid using the templated warnings (except the 3rr one) and instead write a personalized comment on their talk to avoid insulting the experienced editor. If the editor has a negative history, I would likely begin with a higher level template than delete1. If they had an extended history of this type of behavior, I would bring them to ANI. PriusGod (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, good. Sorry I didn't get more marked, I've been a bit busy with running other wikis and discord, but I'll commit to finishing it all tomorrow. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Part 2 (15%)

 * 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.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
 * , POSSIBLY
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
 * Revert and report to AIV.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) A user blanks your userpage and replaced it with 'I hate this user' (you have had a number of problems with this user in the past).
 * Revert and begin a discussion at ANI and inform the user with
 * ✅ I'd just warn them as it's your user space, but again, your user space, your choice. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
 * Revert and report to AIV.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) A user blanks your userpage and replaced it with 'I hate this user' (you have had a number of problems with this user in the past).
 * Revert and begin a discussion at ANI and inform the user with
 * ✅ I'd just warn them as it's your user space, but again, your user space, your choice. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Part 3 (10%)

 * What CSD tag you would put on the following articles (The content below is the article's content).
 * 1) Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
 * db-g11
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
 * db-a7, maybe a1. u5 if in userspace.
 * ✅ or G3 Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
 * db-a7, maybe a1, or u5 if in userspace.
 * ✅ or possibly G3 Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
 * db-g3
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Fuck Wiki!
 * db-g10
 * ✅ or G3 is more appropriate, but G10 would work Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

What would you do in the following circumstance:
 * A user blanks a page they very recently created.
 * Tag the page with db-g7 if it is outside of the talk, user, or category namespaces.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
 * Warn them with and retag the article.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If they remove it an additional time, warn them again, and my behavior would diverge based on their experience level: I would bring a newer user to the Teahouse, then to AN if they persist without engaging. I would continue to template a user of moderate experience, then report them at AN if their behavior continues. If this is a long-term pattern of behavior, I would report them to ANI.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 21:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Part 4 (10%)

 * Are the following new (logged in) usernames violations of the username policy? Describe why or why not and what you would do about it (if they are a breach).
 * 1) TheMainStreetBand
 * Yes, as a violation of WP:ORGNAME and possibly WP:ISU. I would warn them with or, depending on if they have been editing articles pertaining to any Main Street Band or not.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 12:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Poopbubbles
 * This may be a violation of WP:DISRUPTNAME, depending on interpretation. I would consider it to be one, and warn them with, or if they are engaging in vandalism, report them to UAA.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 12:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Brian's Bot
 * Yes, as a violation of WP:MISLEADNAME. I would warn them with, or report them to UAA if they are engaging in bot-like behavior or vandalism.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 12:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
 * Yes, as a violation of WP:UNCONF. I would warn them with, or report them to UAA if they are engaging in vandalism.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 12:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Bobsysop
 * Yes, as a violation of WP:MISLEADNAME. I would warn them with, or report them to UAA if they are attempting to mislead other users that they are an administrator.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 12:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 12:12, 23 June 2012
 * Yes, as a violation of WP:MISLEADNAME. I would warn them with, or report them to UAA if they have been making disruptive talk page posts that take advantage of their username to cast doubt on the age of their posts.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 12:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) PMiller
 * It may be, as it may be a WP:REALNAME, and shares a name with an individual who has a Wikipedia article. If the user has been credibly attempting to convince other users that they are Master P, I would warn them with, explaining that they need to contact the info VRT and furnish them with instructions to do that. If it is clear that they are not Master P, but have been attempting to convince other users that they are, I would report them to UAA. If they have not been attempting to convince other users that they are Master P, I would warn them with , explaining that they may encounter issues with using a real name as a Wikipedia username, and inform them of the possibility that they may be mistaken for a notable person, and that if they were, they have a responsibility to indicate that they are not Master P.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 12:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) OfficialJustinBieber
 * It may be, as a violation of WP:MISLEADNAME, as it implies that the user operating the account is in fact Justin Bieber. If the user has made edits that credibly indicate that they may in fact be Justin Bieber, I would warn them with, explaining that they need to contact the info VRT and furnish them with instructions to do that. If it is clear that they are not Justin Bieber, I would report them to UAA.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 12:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Part 5 (10%)

 * Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.
 * 1) Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
 * Yes, as WP:3RRNO only covers blatant or extreme vandalism. If there is any room to interpret that an editor is acting in good faith, other avenues are available that are more effective and less opaque than just getting in a revert war.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 12:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
 * Vandalism-only accounts should be reported at AIV using vandal, the vandal reporting template as well as a concise description of their behavior.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 12:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
 * Complex abuse can be reported at AN, ANI, or possibly SPI, depending on the nature, severity, and length of time of the abuse. Recent and non-urgent abuse can be reported at AN, extreme or long-term single account (by which I mean not LTA, but a longtime problem user) patterns of abuse can be reported at ANI, and well-masked sockpuppetry can be dealt with by opening a case at SPI if simply reporting the problematic accounts fails to disparage them.
 * ✅ and LTA/ANI too. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 12:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
 * Blatant username violations should be reported at UAA, with a concise description of why their username is problematic.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 12:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
 * If it is a protracted or severe problem, it should be reported at ANI. At the earlier stages, warnings, either templated or personalized, are appropriate. If the personal attacks are related to an editing dispute, DRN is a good idea before it gets out of hand.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 12:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Where and how should an edit war be reported?
 * Edit wars can be reported at AN3, following the specific requirements of presenting diffs of edit war behavior and failed attempts to discuss.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 12:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
 * These should be discussed on BLPN if talk page discussion fails.
 * ✅ Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 12:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Part 6 - Theory in practice (30%)

 * 1. Find and revert three instances of vandalism (by different editors on different pages), and appropriately warn the editor. Please give the diffs the warning below.


 * 2. Find and revert two good faith edits, and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.


 * 3. Correctly report two users (either AIV or ANI). Give the diffs of your report below.


 * 4. Correctly request the protection of two articles; post the diffs of your requests below.
 * 1) It looks on RFPP that it was already protected, but if you check the timeline in the page history of Spalding, it was protected after my request.


 * 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, post the diff below.
 * 1) This one is tough - it wouldn't be a standalone breach, but their only contribs are promoting their business with the same name. I'll pull a second one since it's the user who made the csd'd article.
 * ✅ all good. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 12:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ all good. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 12:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)