User:Akifumii/My CVUA

Akifumii, per your request I will be your CVUA trainer. We will pick up where your previous training left off. This is your new Academy page so your course will occur here. Like your previous training, you will provide answers to the questions or tasks I leave for you. (Typically all questions will be in bold.)

Much of the editing for counter-vandalism is semi-automated because it is not only quicker but the work is often tedious. Automated tools haven't always been available and could fail, so we're going to start the old-fashioned way by manually removing vandalism or simply undoing vandals' edits.

Warning and reporting

We have a variety of types of warnings (for different offences), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4, for increasing severity). WP:WARN provides all the different templates and WP:UWUL discusses how and why these warnings are implemented.

Please answer the following questions

Why do we warn users?

We warn users about their disruptive behavior and help them correct their mistakes. Always assume good faith! -Akifumii^Talk 01:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

4im's are appropriate when users continue to constantly vandalize or misuse Wikipedia. -Akifumii^Talk 01:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Y Could you be more specific? Could you imagine an example? What's the difference between level 4 and 4im? Chris Troutman (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

4ims should be used after a level four warning is issued. It assumes bad faith. Generally used in the case of excessive or continuous disruption from a user or specific IP. This template warns the user that they are on the verge of being blocked without further notice. A² 22:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

N No. If a vandal keeps vandalizing after level 4, you go straight to AIV. 4im is an only warning with (typically) no warnings prior. If a vandal does something so bad (like putting libel on a biographical article about a living person), they get 4im straightaway and then AIV if it continues. Read about the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident. Some IP created an article about this guy with all kinds of libel in it. That guy found out and sued Wikipedia. After that, Wikipedia created The Articles for Creation WikiProject so that couldn't happen again. Blanking an entire page could also be reason to use 4im. The lower warnings are so you assume good faith, you prevent test edits, and let people know that rules exist on Wikipedia. If they're hellbent on vandalizing then it's our job to remove them.

Remember, all you're doing is giving warnings so an admin has reason enough to block. Sometimes admins will refuse to block if the vandal hasn't been given "sufficient warning." If the vandalism is really bad, you don't have to go level 1, to level 2, to level 3, etc. Just skip to 4im and get ready to go to AIV. Often I just start at level 2, and maybe skip level 3 straight to level 4. It's a judgement call. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?

You can substitute a template using "subst" . -Akifumii^Talk 01:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalizes again?

Report to the Wikipedia administrators through AIV. -Akifumii^Talk 01:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Please give examples (using {{tl|''name of template''}}) of three different warnings (not different levels of the same warning and excluding the test edit warnings), that you might need to use and explain what they are used for.

• {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}
• {{subst:uw-disruptive1}}
• {{subst:uw-delete1}}

-Akifumii^Talk 01:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes edits that seem like vandalism can actually 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: {{subst:uw-test1}}, {{subst:uw-test2}} and {{subst:uw-test3}}.

Special:RecentChanges is a good place to patrol for vandalism. This is what the Recent changes patrollers do.

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 using either an external link or {{Diff}}.

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff	My critique
1	diff	Test edit/Good faith edit	✓ Pass Good assessment as a test edit. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
2	diff	Vandal like edits	Y If you make comments, sign them. I should have enforced that earlier. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
3	diff	Test edit, Welcoming template used as well	Y Remember, no automated edits, yet. Use the "undo" button. Otherwise, this is ok. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
4	diff	Vandalism AkifumiiTalk 05:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)	N You failed to warn the IP, and they continued to vandalize until other editors stepped in. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
4A	diff	I actually "undid" these edits. Vandal like edits, nonsense characters A2 16:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)	Y Chris Troutman (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
5	diff	Another test edit by the same user as above A2 16:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)	Y When applying a warning, you can start with level 1. Level 1 templates assume good faith and even intone that you might have misunderstood. If you're sure about it, you can start at level 2. When you place a subsequent warning, it should go up a level from the last. Your goal is to build to level 4 so you can ask for administrator intervention if the vandalism doesn't stop. Remember that IPs are not people so if a month goes by, it might not be the same person on the other end, and warnings start over. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
6	diff	My report to AIV here. User apparently keeps changing his IP and continues to vandalize the same page. He keeps reverting out edits to his own even though we warn him etc. Request for Page Protection was also requested by me. A2 16:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)	Y OK. So you reverted edits by 78.85.151.112 and 78.85.100.19, but you didn't place user warnings on either of those. You reported another vandal, 78.85.239.228 who reverted you, to AIV, which resulted in a rangeblock. That was a good move to request page protection, although we haven't covered that yet. Alas, the admin set the protection for too short a time, it expired, and vandalism resumed. I made a fresh request. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
6A	diff	A2 00:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)	Y Chris Troutman (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
7	diff	Page blanking, user warned with uw-delete1 Please note that I used the reviewer "revert" button. A2 21:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)	Y Chris Troutman (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
8	diff	This was also used with the reviewer "revert" button. I mentioned this on your talk page but never got a reply. A2 21:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)	Y This vandal made two libelous edits to a biographical article about a living person. Using uw-vandalism1 is not the appropriate answer. We have a template specifically for BLPs and I would start at level 2, at least. We haven't covered WP:UAA yet so we'll wait for that lesson to discuss username problems. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
8A	diff	A2 00:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)	Y Chris Troutman (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
9	diff	Back do undoing edits! (Vandalism) A2 14:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)	Y Chris Troutman (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
10	diff	User account was just recently created. Account seems like it is for vandalism only. User warned 3+ times and reported to AIV here. A2 15:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)	Y Chris Troutman (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Tools

You've already been introduced to the tools in your previous CVUA training. I'm going to test your usage of them and perhaps teach you something about them. Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#Tools includes a list of tools and resources for those who want to fight vandalism with a more systematic and efficient approach.

Always keep in mind that Rollback is one of the devolved userrrights from the admin role. Many of the "hats" users now have came about because the admin pool has been too small. For that reason, trusting users that haven't gone through the RfA process to become an admin is only a recent creation, and not everyone thought it was a good idea. Misusing tools could result in you losing use of those tools/userrights associated with them. This is one of the errors that will come up when users become candidates to become admins. I've seen tool misuse derail some candidates, as it indicates a lack of thought on the candidate's part. Five years from now the edits you make today could come back to haunt you.

Example diff showing both Twinkle (top line) and rollback (third line)

I know that you are already a reviewer, rollbacker, and utlize Twinkle. As the picture demonstrates, the use of Twinkle is called "rollback" but isn't actually rollback. The coding allows that functionality. The bottom "rollback" button is rollback. When using the Twinkle option, be careful when you select "vandal" as it makes your use of rollback a minor edit unworthy of an edit summary. Misuse of this could get you into trouble. Be sure you select one of the other two options if you're reverting test edits.

Most importantly, rollback should only ever be used for four reasons. Name three.

• Obvious vandalism by users
• Mistaken edits made by yourself
• Edits in your own userspace

Y This can be a pain in the ass when new users make a series of problematic edits. You have to manually remove them, unless you can convince them to do it themselves. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

From here on, you can use any of the tools you have at your disposal. Twinkle is easily the most useful tool (in my opinion) as it has so many applications. One of those applications is welcoming and shared IP tagging.

@Chris troutman: Just to confirm, does this mean I can use my rollback flag/right?

Yes, the manual undo period is over. You're free to use tools from here on. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2014 (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. These will come into play if there's evidence the vandal is hiding behind a proxy.
• {{Shared IP edu}} - A modified version specifically for use with educational institutions, like schools and colleges.
• {{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. The other is for the host name (which is optional). Both of these can be found out from the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page, like "Traceroute" and "Geolocate".

Also, given that different people use the IP address, older messages are sometimes removed 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:").

I utilize the shared IP templates for two reasons: first, I like to know to whom I'm talking. Sometimes it helps to know if a slanted-POV edit is coming from a company related to the article you're looking at, or some middle school in Lexington, Kentucky. Second, I've found that many vandals start to shape up when they know that their IP is tracked. Online anonymity emboldens many vandals and taking some of that away changes their attitudes. Let me be clear, NEVER get involved in "outing" any user, ever. Wikipedia will ban you for something like that. The Shared IP template is as far as we ever go.

If an IP from PepsiCo changes the article about Pepsi, then knowing the home of that IP may also lead you to place {{Connected contributor}} on that article's talk page. Companies like controlling their public image and they sometimes use Wikipedia to accomplish that. Unhelpful bad faith edits are vandalism and you have to go after them. If you notice an IP belongs to a school, when you go to AIV ask for a School block to cover at least to the end of the semester.

Dealing with difficult users

Vandals will never 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 vandalize your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. My user page has already been vandalized several times. If you're in this business it'll happen to you, too. Please read WP:DENY.

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Accepting the troll may cause them to seem more powerful and confident in their "trolling".

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

A good faith user will want to learn from their mistakes and politely ask you why you reverted their edit. Trolls will be rude, non-accepting, and provoking. A² 23:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Don't forget that good faith new edits may be pushy, upset, or rude but their frustration might be coloring their response. Although this is in the wrong place and unsigned, it's a good faith attempt by a new user. This is trolling and harassment. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that warning templates are not supposed to be a shaming device. Per WP:OWNTALK, users can remove warning notices as they please. If you suspect shenanigans, take a look at the history tab. Slap on an appropriate warning and {{OW}} and leave it at that. Report to ANI, AIV, etc. as needed. If you get into a tit-for-tat battle on the talk page, admins responding to the mess may throw up their hands and block the both of you. Many times, all a troll wants to do is engage with you just for the fun of it. Deny the fun and the trolling stops.

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?

Pages should be semi-protected if they are prone to vandalism or violations of the content policy. A² 23:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 (PC1) protected?

Pages should be PC1 when there is persistent vandalism, violations of the living persons policy, and copyright violations from new users or IPs. A² 23:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Y So what does it mean when a page is under PC1? Chris Troutman (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

When a page is under PC1, the edit has to go through reviewers before being seen by other users. A² 15:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Right. PC1 is good to stop IPs and new users, but it doesn't stop autoconfirmed users. Furthermore, once a page has PC1, it'll take reviewers to check it. There's a burden when these articles get protected, although it's necessary to stop vandalism. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Pages should be fully protected if there is vandalism or disruptive editing from confirmed users or above. A² 23:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Pages should be "salted" if they keep being re-created. A² 23:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Talk pages should be protected if they contain vandalism or spam edits. Talk pages should be protected for a short amount of time. A² 23:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

What are the potential problems of having a page covered under PC1? How does this compare to the problems of full protection?

If a page is under PC1, there may be some untrustworthy reviewers out there who actually approve the edit. Full protected pages can only be edited by administrators. A² 23:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Y While it's true reviewers could screw up, it's somewhat unlikely. Why does the impact of PC1, semi-protection, or full protection matter? Chris Troutman (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see. If a page is PC1, confirmed users can make edits to it without it going through a reviewer. If the page is fully protected, than only administrators can edit it. A² 15:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Right. It's a balance of who can edit versus who might cause vandalism. We could mass protect articles but then they'd never get updated. The more protection you use, the fewer potential users you have that can take care of it. If registered users are vandalizing, you have no choice to ask for full protection. But then, you're stuck waiting on an admin to update it. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

Please read WP:AFD and WP:CSD. Since this course is focused on counter-vandalism, you need only consider if a page (because of a bad-faith editor) has to be speedy deleted. Sometimes speedy deletion is inappropriate and you should instead nominate the article for deletion.

In your own words, under what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

A page should be speedy deleted if the page has no context, author requests deletion, vandalism, promotions, etc. A² 00:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

When is speedy deletion not the best measure?

If a page violates the community standards it should not be speedy deleted but it should go under proposed deletion. A² 00:35, 8 July 2014 (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.

• diff I don't really know how I could add the diff link because the page is already deleted. The diff you are looking at was the talk page of the user who created the article. A² 14:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  Y Yes, the diff of tagging the page only exists until the page is deleted, so your notification diff is fine. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• diff I marked this one for deletion on the Simple English Wikipedia. I hope this is ok. A² 01:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  Y Chris Troutman (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2014 (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:

• 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.

Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particular attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.

Describe what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).

DJohnson

Nothing wrong with this. A² 05:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Blanchbrassband

Seems promotional (Promoting a band) A² 05:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Funnily, I reported User:Blanchbrassband and the admin told me it was ok because they only edited a draft article. This is a good example of how you can detect a conflict of interest. Some usernames will instantly look recognizably promotional when you check out their edit history. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sukhdeep.055

Misleading, profanity (Seems like user wants to "Suck Deep") A² 05:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Παράδειγμα

Unless this means something offensive in Russian, this username should be ok. A² 05:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Dickwad115

Just plain offensive and misleading A² 05:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thefutonshop

Promoting "The Futon Shop" A² 05:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

~~~~

Misleading. This is Wiki Text A² 05:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

172.295.64.27

Misleading. Another user may mistaken this for an actual IP address. A² 05:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing

In my opinion, this username seems fine. A² 05:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Bieberisgay

Offensive to Justin Bieber. Giving the intention that he is gay. A² 05:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

SuperEditBot

Misleading. Probably not a bot. A² 05:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Note that there is a specific prohibition of a non-bot account being labeled as a bot. Accordingly, pretty much every bot account you see (save a couple) will be labeled "bot". Chris Troutman (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

78.26

This seems fine to me. Doesn't look like an IP.

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The real Barbara Schwarz

Misleading. Giving the intention that it is Barbara Schwarz.

N See WP:REALNAME. This username is a problem Iff this person is not Barbara Schwarz. Now, if my real name were Tom Brokaw, there might be an issue that people would think I'm that news guy, and not me. I edit under my real name. Is that prohibited? No, of course not. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Jesus hates FAGS!!

Offensive to people who believe in Jesus and "Fags". A² 05:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Call me LORDiNFAMOUS

User is promoting him/herself. A² 05:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

N User:Call me LORDiNFAMOUS was an actual user and they weren't banned because of their username. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Call me Lucy

User:Call me Lucy is real. Nothing wrong with this username. A² 00:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Y I guess I tipped my hand on how I constructed this part of the test. Next time I'll be more careful. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Call me xyz

User:Call me xyz is also real (blocked for abusing multiple accounts) but nothing out of the ordinary with this name. A² 00:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Urstupidx99

This username seems a little offensive but I may just report to UAA just to be sure. A² 00:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Yeah. It's on the line of being offensive. That user is already blocked indefinitely so it's pointless to go to UAA. What would be left to do? Block them again? Also, admins will only block active usernames. If a user leaves and hasn't edited for a month, they won't act. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Progress test

At this stage, you've completed the initial block of training. This progress test will evaluate your readiness to move on to the next step, which is observation of your counter-vandalism activity without assignments. If you have any questions after taking this test, now's the time to ask.

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

Scenario 1

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?

This is an advertising edit. It should be reverted with the vandal button. A² 01:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Don't get over-eager, though. WP:EL discusses the use of external links. Sometimes this might be ok. This time it's definitely not. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

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

I would probably use {{subst:uw-advert1}} A² 01:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Y There's also {{uw-spam1}} because they're adding a URL/external link. (It's more specific.) Remember, if you know without a doubt that the edit is wrong, you can start with level 2. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Yes I would tag the article with speedy deletion tags. It seems like a promotion since there are some words from the website www.laptopsinc.com and there is not enough context to support the significance of the article itself. A² 01:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Promotional articles and user pages can be speedy deleted under WP:G11. The article might have plenty of context; it gets deleted purely for being promotional. If they copied material from another website, it can also be deleted as WP:G12, WP:COPYVIO. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

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

I would leave {{subst:uw-username}} A² 01:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Would you report the user to UAA? If so, what reason(s) does it violate?

This username is obviously a promotion. I would report it to UAA right away. A² 01:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Y There are one of two ways you can go with this: If the violation is blatant you go straight to UAA; no warnings. If the username is offensive I would go straight to UAA. With an obvious promotional username, you could warn them and allow them to change their username. Furthermore, if an account that seems to be named as a group account and it's promotional and they make edits related to same, you can use {{Uw-coi-username}} to notify the user of all this. Many, many companies send PR people to write and control an article about the company. It's best to notify them of all those problems. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Scenario 2

An IP adds the word "test" and then removes them, on three different articles.

• Are these edits vandalism?

I don't see how these are vandal like edits. These are test edits though. A² 02:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• What action do you take on the IP's talk page?

Since the user added "test" to 3 different articles, I would start off with a level 2 warning. A² 02:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Y I like using {{Uw-selfrevert}} Chris Troutman (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• The IP has been issued warnings a couple weeks ago but removed them. How does this influence you?

Warnings are not supposed to be used as a shaming device. Users may remove them at any time as they please. A² 02:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Y This is true, however if the user had a level 1 and level 2 posted only weeks ago, you would be fine starting at level 3. (We are assuming it's the same person from that IP.) I also like using {{OW}} so that other editors are aware this user has already been warned. We don't want to let vandals act as if this was the first time. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• The IP commits more such edits and has received a level 4 warning. If this IP vandalizes again, what action would you take and based on what circumstances?

I would go ahead and report the IP to AIV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akifumii (talk • contribs)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• The IP is blocked for 3 days; on the fourth day the IP puts "test" on another article. What action would you take in light of everything else?

I would report the user to AIV since the IP has vandalized after one day after a release from a block. A² 02:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Anyone eager to vandalize the minute their block is lifted needs to be blocked again. and quickly. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Scenario 3

An editor removes an unsourced paragraph from an article with no edit summary.

• I would revert it with the Twinkle AGF function. I would also warn the user. A² 02:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Definely AGF. Per Wikipedia:Vandalism#Blanking, illegitimate: "blanking may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material". Without an edit summary, you should definitely provide a warning and probably revert. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The same editor removes a sourced paragraph from the same article with no edit summary.

• I would also revert it with the Twinkle AGF button. I would warn the user again. A² 02:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Removing source content is never allowed without good reason. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The same editor removes other paragraphs with the edit summary "this information is false!!"

• I would then ask for this information to be accompanied by a reliable source. A² 02:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

? If they're removing information, why would they provide a source? If the information is sourced and they claim it's false, tell them to discuss it on the talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Another editor has started reverting these removals, with the edit summary "it is true".

• I would tell the user to leave the changes alone and that I will get administrator attention. I would tell this user that he/she should not start an edit war. A² 02:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Y You don't want an edit war to start. That said, be careful. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If this pattern continues, what's the most appropriate thing for you to do?

• I would report the users to AIV for edit warring. A² 02:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

N Take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Scenario 4

You revert an edit (vandalism) and discover this IP has vandalized a dozen other articles in the past six months, but only three others in the past month. The other edits were reverted by other editors but no warnings have ever been issued.

• I would first give out a warning for the edit a reverted myself. I would then just keep a close eye on the IP and their contributions. If they continue to vandalize up a level 4 warning, I will report them to AIV. A² 04:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Y This is a judgement call, so I'll give you credit. There are two other options: First, if there's been a total of four vandal edits just this month, use the 4im warning. Second, in the past I've issued a level 2 warning for one vandal edit, a level 3 for another vandal edit, and a level 4 for the most recent. That way they're maxed out and you can take them to AIV the next time they vandalize. Your choice is fine, as we don't know who's on the other end of that IP. This is another reason to check the "SharedIP" information and look at the edit history. If it's a school, I might be pushing for a school block. If it's just some IP and the edit history is all over the place, it might be a dozen different people. The number one purpose behind CVUA is to protect the wiki by preventing (and reverting) vandalism. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• How would this situation be different if the vandal were a registered user that still doesn't have a talk page?

If the user is a registered user and no warnings were issued, I would consider this to be a vandalism only account and report it to the administrators. A² 04:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Y If ALL of the user's contributions were vandalism then yes. If, however, only half of their edits were vandalism you can start applying warnings. You can use {{welcomevandal}}. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Other questions

• An editor blanks a BLP for a second time after having already received a 4im warning. Where should you report them?

After a level 4 or 4im, a user should be reported to AIV. A² 04:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Two editors edit and revert each other on an article. Where does this need to be reported and why?

This is called edit warring. Edit warring can be reported to the administrators using one of the Twinkle functions. A² 04:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Remember WP:AN/EW. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• You find an odd situation that is neither vandalism nor edit warring. Describe some options available to you.

I could add it to my watchlist, ask an administrator or another user with the same userrights as me, look back at Wikipedia policies. A² 04:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Y WP:AN is the catch-all admin noticeboard, so that's the best place to go. You can always ask another editor, especially an admin, for their opinion. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Monitoring period

Congratulations, @Akifumii:! You have completed the instruction portion of this course. Our next stage is up to you. During this time, you are free to revert vandalism (and edit Wikipedia) as you normally do; I will monitor your progress in counter-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.

If you have any problems or trouble along the way please leave a message in this section. If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look. I want to assess your ability but I also want to help as you see editing unfold. The final test is going to look a lot like the test you just took, so there will be scenarios for you to deal with, applying our policies and guidelines against the stuff you'll see on-wiki. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: What is the score I need to get on the final test to pass? A² 14:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm still designing it. Other tests designed for this course score their test but I'm not sure what passing criteria is. I think passing will be based on my level of comfort. Like the test you've already taken, I might have some issue with how you answer but I'm not calculating points to come up with an objective score. If I feel that you "get it" then that will likely be enough. At the same time, if I have lingering doubts about your ability based on your answers then the test will either have questions added for you to improve or we'll stop and try again. I wouldn't worry about it. You've done well so far and unless you make a series of errors, I think you'll be fine. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Final Exam

This is the first edition of my own CVUA test; it takes queues from previous tests and encapsulates training you've gone through. The design of the test includes a grading component and you'll have to meet or exceed 80% overall to pass with no less than 70% in each part of the test. Some of these questions are deliberately tricky so it's not unlikely you'll get less than 100%. When responding to numbered questions please start your response with "#:" (except where shown otherwise - with **). Unlike the previous training, you don't need to worry about signing your answers. You have the next five days to finish this final test. I encourage you to read the applicable policies and guidelines if you have any doubts about the right answers. Examining your previous training (above) may be helpful, too.

Part 1 (25%)

Marks: 5
Marks obtained: 5

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?

   This is a good faith edit and also a test edit. I would use the twinkle AGF button to revert the edit and use a welcome template on the user's talk page.Y

2. A user adds their signature to an article they've edited after being given a {{uw-articlesig}} warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?

   This is a good faith edit. I would probably just warn the user and explain to him when and where to add signatures. Y

3. 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?

   This is vandalism. I would warn the user. When this user receives a level 4 warning or above report to AIV. Y

4. A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?

   Good faith editing test. I would keep warning the user with {{|subst:uw-test1}} Y

5. A user removes sources information from an article, with the summary 'this is false'. How do you respond if it's their first time; what if they do it again? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions?

   This is vandalism. If a user removes sourced content from an article, it would be vandalism. I would first warn the user with {{subst:uw-delete1}} and so forth. I would also add in the warning to provide better edit summaries rather than 'this is false'. Y

Part 2 (15%)

Marks: 12
Marks obtained: 11

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 Malta University Historical Society.

   {{subst:uw-delete1}} Y

2. A user puts curse words into the article about Derek Jeter, thereby tripping an edit filter.

   {{subst:uw-attempt}} Y

3. A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.

   {{subst:uw-efsummary}} Y

4. A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.

   {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} Y

5. A user removes all pictures from Human sexuality.

   Although some users may be grossed out by this, I would probably revert the changes. I would warn the user with {{subst:uw-delete1}} Y

6. A user adds www.lyricsworld.com to Corrs and Westlife and Robbie Williams.

   I would leave this edit alone. I don't really 'see' how this could be reverted.

   N Remember this section is about handing out user warnings, not reversion. Please read WP:EL; the correct response is {{uw-spam2}} and so forth. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

7. A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.

   {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} Y

8. A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.

   {{subst:uw-biog1}}

   Y You could also go with {{uw-defamatory1}}. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

9. A user blanks Rosebud (film), for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.

   {{subst:uw-delete4im}} Y

10. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.

    AIV Y

11. 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).

    ANI Y

12. A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.

    {{subst:uw-image1}} Y

Part 3 (10%)

Marks: 7
Marks obtained: 5

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)!

   {{subst:db-g11}} Y

2. Thirteen years ago, David Deutsch was arrested in Salinas, California, while making his regular drug trafficking run from Los Angeles to San Francisco. When his car was pulled over, he was under the influence of marijuana; police found large amounts of cocaine and marijuana in the vehicle, as well as $715,000 in cash. Although he had been using and dealing drugs most of his adult life, Deutsch had never previously been caught, so he received a rather lenient sentence (by California standards) of six years in San Quentin State Prison. The day of his arrest was the last time Deutsch used drugs. Early in his prison term, he says, he decided to dedicate the rest of his life to helping others with drug problems. At San Quentin he volunteered to run a peer tutoring program, joined Narcotics Anonymous, and became a chapel clerk. He published an article on prison education in The Journal of Prisoners on Prisons — unlike most inmates, he held a college degree. After his release, he became a certified addiction counselor and earned a master’s degree in social work, with a 4.0 grade point average. Despite all that, he needed no less than 58 letters of recommendation to get his license as an associate social worker. Once equipped with those testimonials, Deutsch received a formal Certificate of Rehabilitation — declaring him to be officially reformed — from the state of California in 2011. His drive to inspire others to turn their lives around has an almost physical intensity. He currently works as a clinical director for one of the country’s largest mental health agencies, where he runs a program for former prisoners who are mentally ill.

   {{subst:db-g11}}

   N Use WP:G12. This is an obvious copyvio from a Wilson Quarterly article. Often if the text reads very well it was copied from somewhere else. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

3. A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper. Unlike its close relation, the Liger, it is not known for its magical abilities.

   {{subst:db-g3}} Y

4. Fuck Wiki!

   {{subst:db-g10}} Y

Part 3 1/2

What would you do in the following circumstance:

• A user blanks a page they very recently created.
  • Tag for speedy deletion Y

• After you have "speedy delete" tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
  • I would confront the creator and ask why he removed the tag and blanked the page. I would then propose the request deletion of the article rather than speedy delete. Y

• You find a page that was created by User:Flightofthewiki and edited by no one else.
  • I can't just leave a blank page out there. I have to at least request deletion at RfD.
    • N This is one of my tricky questions and you should've read it carefully and consulted WP:CSD. The question doesn't say the article is blank. The user in question is marked as a sock of a notorious banned user. It gets deleted under WP:G5. Furthermore, "RFD" is "redirects for deletion". Chris Troutman (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Part 4 (10%)

Marks: 8
Marks obtained: 7

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. Blanchbrassband

   Promotional. Report to UAA Y

2. Callmeirresponsible

   Nothing wrong here Y

3. Brian's Bot

   Not a bot. Only bots with the bot flag should have bot in its username. Report to UAA Y

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

   Confusing and misleading. Report to UAA

   N It does not violate the policy. Confusing? Yes. Discuss with the user. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

5. Bobsysop

   Can't have sysop, bureaucrat, etc. That is a userrright. Report to UAA. Y

6. 12:12, 23 June 2012

   Timestamps can't be usernames. Report to UAA. Y

7. PMiller

   Nothing wrong here Y

8. OfficialMarkLevin

   Report to UAA. This username gives the intention that it is Mark Levin when it is most likely not Y

Part 5 (10%)

Marks: 7
Marks obtained: 6

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)?

   No. Reverting vandalism is an exception Y

2. Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?

   Report to AIV Y

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

   Administrators noticeboard (ANI) Y

4. Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?

   Report to AIV N UAA, obviously. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

5. Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?

   Report to ANI Y

6. Where and how should an edit war be reported?

   Report to AN3 Y

7. Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?

   BLPN Y

Part 6 - Application on wiki (30%)

Marks: 11
Marks obtained: 8

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

1. diff This was from the Simple English Wikipedia. I reported to user to AIV after this revert. Y
2. diff Y
3. diff

   N You failed to issue a warning to User talk:142.136.203.41. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm STiki messed up on that... A² 04:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

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

1. diff

   Y Incidentally, that footballer was not born in the 1940s so you restored that error. On balance, without providing any references for deconfliction, that user's edit wasn't helpful and you properly AGF'd. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

2. diff Y

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

1. diff This was also from the Simple English Wikipedia Y

4. Correctly request the protection of two articles; post the diffs of your requests below.

1. diff From the Simple English Wikipedia

   Y Although the responding admin disagreed, I think that article ought to be semi-protected because of vandalism from new registered users. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

2. diff Also from the Simple English Wikipedia

   Y I'll give you credit for this, since my training didn't adequately explain this. A page has to be vandalized at least daily to get protection, even temporarily. Most admins won't protect a page unless it's constant harassment. Furthermore, don't attempt to convince an admin by saying that you think it ought to be protected. State that the vandalism is re-occurring, by whom (IP or registered user), and what type of protection (PC1 or semi). If you make out clear rationale an admin will support you. I ask for protection of Saint Patrick's Day every March because the vandalism is predictable. If you know of a reason then that'll help sell protection. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

5. Correctly nominate one article for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nomination below.

1. diff

   N You can't nominate for being blank if it isn't blank. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

6. Correctly report one username as a breach of policy.

1. diff Y

Final score

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage
1	5	5	25	100% (.25)
2	12	11	15	91.7% (.138)
3	7	5	10	71.4% (.0714)
4	8	7	10	87.5% (.0875)
5	7	6	10	85.7% (.0857)
6	11	8	30	72.7% (.2181)
TOTAL	50		100	85.07% (.8507)

Graduate

Akifumii is a CVU graduate!

Congratulations Akifumii on your successful completion of this CVUA program from the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with 85.07%. Well done. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

As a CVU Academy graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox.
{{User CVUA|graduate}}:

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.