User:Chris troutman/CVUA/Cadillac000

Cadillac000, this is your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page. Each student in the CVUA has a page where they complete assignments from their instructor. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your academy page has been specifically designed according to you. We'll tailor your training based on your interests and my capabilities. There are several anti-vandal tools out there but I only really use Lupin's anti-vandal tool. My approach to vandalism is to properly judge each edit, slam the offender as appropriate, and prevent further disruption to the wiki.

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

How to use this page

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. You can provide an external link or use Template:Diff. Either is fine. 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 and leave an edit summary as you would on a talk 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.

Start

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.

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 recognize the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit because your response is based on that assessment. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.

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

A good faith edit is an edit made with the intention of helping the encyclopedia. They are often made by new, unexperienced editors who haven't read or don't understand such policies and guidelines as Wikipedia:MoS and Wikipedia:NPOV. This includes adding unsourced or controversial content, content with excessive syntax errors and usually test edits. A vandalism edit is made with the deliberate intent of damaging the encyclopedia. Adding obscenities, trolling, unencyclopedic images and mass blanking are some of the main forms of vandalism. --The one that forgot (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

So the key here is intent. If a new editor adds useful content but it isn't sourced that's a good faith edit. If an editor makes a simple change by adding a space or a semicolon then it's a test. Someone making a test edit wants to be unobtrusive and will often revert their own edit. If the change is disruptive then you have to question if they did it accidentally. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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. Explain why the edits qualified as they had.

Good faith

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balaklava&diff=641139500&oldid=641139126 Unsourced and lacking NPOV, but technically not vandalism. --The one that forgot (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I accept this is that the editor made an effort to be professional but to add a fact. Some thought went into it. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Case_study&diff=641524953&oldid=641524769 This may have been a foreign language contributor posting the name in his local dialect. Still borderline vandalism, but I consider this good faith. --The one that forgot(talk) 03:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't accept this is any well-meaning effort to improve the encyclopedia and it doesn't look like a test edit, either. It looks like vandalism to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vinod_Tawde&diff=641525286&oldid=634499715 Most likely a test edit, so therefore not vandalism. --The one that forgot (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't buy it. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conflicts_in_Europe&diff=641524059&oldid=637400080 mass changing of article subject words and I don't see how they can be considered good faith. --The one that forgot (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris Troutman (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Himalayas&diff=640762843&oldid=640687770 Nonsense edit. --The one that forgot (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris Troutman (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Chronicles_of_Narnia&diff=640763395&oldid=640115237 Again by Deathmanrow123, nonsense and offensive content. --The one that forgot (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris Troutman (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Be careful in the future with this. You're better off assuming good faith too often than not often enough, but I think you have to be realistic. You'll see more good faith test edits in the future. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

We have a variety of types of warnings (for different offenses), 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 to inform them that their recent edits do not follow Wikipedia guidelines and policy. If we assume good faith and warn them appropriately, they can learn from their mistakes and become valued editors in the future. Undoing their edits and not informing the user may discourage them from editing. --The one that forgot (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Y The first step to addressing vandalism is letting editors know why what they did is problematic. Often admins will refuse to block users if they were insufficiently warned which is why you want to build the paper trail early. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

When it is obvious that a vandal is editing in bad faith and/or has repeatedly partaken in gross or extreme vandalism, a 4im warning is appropriate. --The one that forgot (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Y Violations of WP:BLP are a good example. Most vandalism doesn't rise to this level. Attacks against other editors sometimes merit an immediate 4im warning. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?

Generally you should, by adding "subst:" at the beginning of a template. --The one that forgot (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Y The reason why is that putting a template call into a page causes the page to load slower. Warnings, unlike other templates, don't need to be synched to the latest version. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalizes again?

Report them to WP:AIV immediately, where a block should be issued. --The one that forgot (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Y Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2015 (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.

{{Uw-vandalism1}} - This is used for vandalism edits. The 1st template assumes good faith, if bad faith is suspected then it would be more appropriate to move to {{Uw-vandalism3}} or {{Uw-vandalism4im}}.

Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Uw-delete1}} - This would be appropriate when a user removes content/blanks the page without raising an issue with other editors yet.

The wording of the level 1 warnings leaves the possibility you were wrong about what the editor did. If you're sure their edit wasn't constructive or good faith, start at level 2. That they didn't use an edit summary or the talk page doesn't enter into the equation. Removing sourced content without an edit summary is an automatic wrong answer. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Uw-redirect1}} - Used when an editor redirects a page with malicious intent, for example redirecting Homosexuality to Justin Bieber. --The one that forgot (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Test edits get some amount of 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 manually 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	[1]	Used {{Uw-vandalism2}}	Y
2	[2]	Also reported at WP:AIV, here is the diff; [3]	Y
3	[4]	I jumped straight to {{Uw-vandalism3}} due to obvious bad faith	Y
4	[5]	Used {{Uw-vandalism2}}	Y
5	[6]	Used {{Uw-vandalism1}}	N They wrote "The Gift of the Prostitutes" and you assume good faith? Chris Troutman (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
6	[7]	Due to the images chosen this could be a test edit; warned with {{uw-image1}}	Y
7	[8]	Also reported at WP:AIV, here is the diff; [9]	Y
8	[10]	Most likely a test due to the </ref> tags and obscure characters. {{Uw-test1}} was used.	Y
9	[11]	Probably a user experimenting with different forms of wiki markup. {{Uw-test2}} was used.	Y
10	[12]	{{Uw-vandalism2}} was used.	Y

Tools

Counter-vandalism is a time-intensive task. For this reason, a number of semi-automated tools like Twinkle have been created. 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. In addition to looking at Special:RecentChanges for potential vandalism, you might consider using Lupin's anti-vandalism tool. It helps you sort through all the good edits to identy just the problematic edits so you can revert them and warn the vandals.

Twinkle will be key for you because it doesn't require any other userrights (commonly called "hats") to use. Tools like Huggle and AWB require permission to use. Twinkle will enable you to rollback multiple vandal edits all in one click.

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 the userright rollback (third line)

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 the rollback "hat" you have to request. 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.

To revert clear, obvious vandalism Y
To revert edits made by yourself Y
To revert edits by banned users who are prohibited from editing --The one that forgot (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Y

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.

You can now use any tool you like. If you require specific training on a particular tool I can teach you about Lupin's antivandal tool to patrol recent changes in an un-graded section outside of the CVUA requirements.

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.

Tag five IP talk pages with applicable Shared IP templates. Only tag talk pages that have received warnings. Find these talk pages where you can including WP:AIV and the IPs you've warned previously.

#	Diff of your tagging	Your comment (optional).	Marker's comment (optional)
1	[13]	I later modified the location tagging	Y Good thing you did. Let's not confuse a corporation with an ISP! Chris Troutman (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
2	[14]	Later modified to University of Texas at Dallas	Y The tool indicates it's a possible proxy, like a VPN. That it belongs to the university is the most important piece of info. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
3	[15]		Y
4	[16]		Y In cases where it belongs to an entity, you can wikify that field so editors can see in more detail what the entity is. Wikipedia has articles on just about every school district in the US. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
5	[17]	Used static IP tag based on geolocation.	Y

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?

If vandals/trolls are recognised for their actions, it only serves as encouragement to continue their disruption. Do not feed the trolls - "revert, warn, ignore" is a phrase I often use - and keep calm when dealing with them. --The one that forgot (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Y

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

Good faith editors ask you about their edits because they genuinely want to learn from their mistakes. Furthermore, after you warn a good faith editor, their edits should convey their want to learn and an attempt to improve will be seen. Trolls can be identified because they obviously have no intent of learning about editing - they will be impolite and will try to disrupt your actions. --The one that forgot (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As time goes by you'll see trolling and get a feel for how sneaky a troll (typically a blocked editor) can be. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Page Protection

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).

Please read the protection policy and answer the following questions in your own words.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

Semi-protection is used due to significant disruption by unregistered users and new accounts. This can be a result of significant vandalism and BLP violations. --The one that forgot (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

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

Pending changes protection is usually carried out as an alternative to semi-protection, when a page is the target of a considerable amount of vandalism, BLP violations and copyright violations. --The one that forgot (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh? This answer is just about the same as for the previous question. What's the difference between semi and PC1? What about the never-used PC2? Chris Troutman (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

So pending changes 1 can be used on pages where there are still new or unregistered users making positive contributions to the article, yet still with a high risk of vandalism. Anyone can edit a PC1 article, but edits by new users pass through a manual edit filter of sorts, consisting of reviewers who check the edits for any policy violations or vandalism. This way, no edits are left unseen and it is all but impossible for unhelpful contributions to be submitted. As for PC2, I actually have no idea what it means. There seem to be mentions of it every now and then but I can't find a definition. --The one that forgot (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

PC1 allows IPs to make edits, albeit through reviewers. Semi prevents this entirely. I think PC1 is an easier sell to admins than semi. PC2 has been discussed in cases where autoconfirmed editors tend to fight over content. PC2 would likely only allow rollbackers and admins to make edits to affected articles. While the community has agreed that PC2 should exist there's no consensus on when. It has essentially never been used. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Full protection is only used temporarily for the most extreme of cases, usually as a result of edit warring. This can force the warring users to come to a resolution through consensus. --The one that forgot (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

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

Creation protection is utilised when a page is repeatedly being recreated and deleted, and there is consensus for its deletion. --The one that forgot (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Remember consensus is expressed via AfD, MfD, CfD, and the like. Attack pages (which are germane to countervandalism) are prohibited by policy so someone recreating an attack page would lead to the title being salted. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Talk page protection isn't carried out often, only used in severe cases of talk page harassment and vandalism. --The one that forgot (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

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

PC1 could be problematic due to every single edit needing to pass through an autoconfirmed reviewer before they go live - a potential backlog of edits could pop up on pages with a high edit rate. Full protection is very difficult as the page becomes inaccessible to the general public, thereby going against the encyclopaedia's intentions and prohibiting helpful editors from editing the page. --The one that forgot (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a balance. We want the lowest level of protection so users can edit while preventing vandalism. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2015 (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?

Put simply, a page should be speedy deleted when it is an uncontroversial violation of any of the criteria at WP:CSD. --The one that forgot (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

When is speedy deletion not the best measure?

Speedy deletion is not the best measure when the page in question can be improved or is in the process of being improved by another editor, or if it is not a blatant violation of the criteria - in that case Wikipedia:AfD would be a better choice. --The one that forgot (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

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 requested under Wikipedia:A10. Y

diff I requested under Wikipedia:A7. --The one that forgot (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

Be advised that if you're using Twinkle, you can have Twinkle log your deletions. This becomes important should you ever seek adminship. For example, this is my CSD log. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Usernames

I see that you've already visited UAA about usernames you've encountered, so this section should be easy. Some users 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. Remember that usernames that imply a group account are prohibited. Also be on the look-out for names that seem to indicate some connection to public relations. Many editors on Wikipedia are businesses promoting various commercial interests. With a little research you might find a connection between an article and the editor. I always recommend warning those users about conflict of interest even if their username is compliant.
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

I don't think this is an issue.. --The one that forgot (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

Blanchbrassband

This seems to be a promotional username and it also might imply shared use. Probably report to UAA. --The one that forgot (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

Sukhdeep.055

An offensive username. Report to UAA. --The one that forgot (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

Παράδειγμα

This is not a violation per the username policy, as confusing and problematic as it may be. --The one that forgot (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

Dickwad115

Again, offensive. Report to UAA. --The one that forgot (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

Thefutonshop

Since there is a company with this exact name, it is promotional and I'd report to UAA. --The one that forgot (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

~~~~

The use of wikiscript like this is prohibited and disruptive. Report to UAA. --The one that forgot (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

172.295.64.27

Suggests an IP address. Report to UAA. --The one that forgot (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

WhatamIdoing

This seems fine. --The one that forgot (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

Bieberisgay

Disruptive and offensive. UAA. --The one that forgot (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

SuperEditBot

This implies that the user is a bot (unless they actually are - I'd check the user page first). Report to UAA. --The one that forgot (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

78.26

This is too short to imply an IP address so this seems fine. --The one that forgot (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

The real Barbara Schwarz

This is a tricky one. Per Wikipedia:REALNAME, I would probably tag the talk page with {{Uw-username}} to give them the option of changing the username due to the possible issues that may arise. Otherwise I'd guess that this would be okay. --The one that forgot (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem if the person behind the account isn't Barbara Schwarz. Generally Wikipedia doesn't have editors identify themselves so yes, I'd recommend a change. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Jesus hates FAGS!!

Offensive. Report to UAA. --The one that forgot (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

Call me LORDiNFAMOUS

No obvious problems with this. --The one that forgot (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Y

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 from me. If you have any questions after taking this test you'd do well to ask then.

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?

I'd revert it with the vandalism rollback because the edit is clear advertising. --The one that forgot (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Y

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

I'd warn it with {{Uw-spam1}}. --The one that forgot (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Y

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

I'd tag it with G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). --The one that forgot (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Y

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

{{Uw-coi-username}} would be good in this instance. --The one that forgot (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Y

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

I definitely would, it is a clear promotional username. --The one that forgot (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Y

Scenario 2

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

Are these edits vandalism?

They are prohibited but not vandalism. --The one that forgot (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Y

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

While checking the warning grid for last section I stumbled upon {{Uw-selfrevert}} - that seems quite applicable here. Otherwise I'd use {{Uw-test2}} Y

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

This would be fine. Anyone is allowed to remove messages from their own talk pages at will and this could mean that they have read and acknowledged the warnings. --The one that forgot (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Y

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'd take the IP to AIV. --The one that forgot (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Y

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?

At this point it's pretty clear that this is a vandalism-only IP. I'd request a longer block. --The one that forgot (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Y

Scenario 3

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

Tag their talk page with {{t1|Uw-delete1}], assuming good faith. --The one that forgot (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I think you meant to use Template:tl. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

You need a good reason to remove sourced content - {{t1|Uw-delete2}]. --The one that forgot (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Y

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

Use {{Uw-delete3}}. --The one that forgot (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Y

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

This could lead to an edit war - I'd ask the users to discuss it on the talk page and leave the reverting user a note on edit summaries. --The one that forgot (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Y

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

Report them to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --The one that forgot (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Y

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.

IP's can consist of multiple people so the edits might not necessarily be made by the same user, but I'd tag with a slightly higher warning ({{Uw-vandalism2}} or {{Uw-vandalism3}}) just to be safe. --The one that forgot (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Y

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

This would mean that the edits were made by a single person so I'd definitely use {{Uw-vandalism4im}}. --The one that forgot (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Y

Monitoring period

Congratulations, @Cadillac000:! 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. I may watch you for a few days up to a week, depending on what I see in your editing. If there are any issues, I will raise them with you and if you have any problems, you are free to ask me. Once I am satisfied with your progress, you will take the final test.

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) 21:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cadillac000: Why did you revert this edit and not warn or follow up? Chris Troutman (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

After I reverted the edit I was going to take the case to Wikipedia:AN/EW, as the account had been warned repeatedly and there weren't really any other steps to go through, but by the time I went to the talk page User:GB fan had already beat me to it and the user was soon blocked indefinitely. I kept an eye on the comments section in case a discussion arose but it ended very promptly. --The one that forgot (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. A username like that, making the edit it had should already get warnings for username and conflict of interest. I notice the vandalism on your userpage and the userpage vandalism you were responding to. For userpage vandalism (unless someone stupidy posts a good faith comment onto the user page versus user talk) I'd go straight to 4im and then AIV. There's no good faith behind vandalism like that. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Final Exam

To editor Cadillac000: 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 in part 6 where our responses start after the "**". Unlike the previous training, you don't need to worry about signing your answers. You have the next seven 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: 4

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).

A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article. What would you do if it was their first warning? What about after that?
This is good faith as it is a test edit; start with {{Uw-test1}} and work your way up from there. Y
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?
I'd discuss the issue with the user on their talk page initially, but if they continually do this I'd raise it at ANI.
Y You don't seem to answer the question if this is good faith after they've been warned. Discussing with the user (reverting and warning) and then going to ANI isn't wrong, though. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
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 and I'd start at {{Uw-vandalism1}}. Y
A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article more than once?
These are good faith test edits and I'd cycle through the test edit warnings. Y
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 as removing sourced content from a page without good reason is prohibited. I'd start with {{Uw-delete1}} with a note about edit summaries, and then go up from there.
Y Level 1 is too weak, to my mind. You are right that removing sourced content at least requires a good edit summary. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Part 2 (15%)

Marks: 12
Marks obtained: 12

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.

A user blanks Malta University Historical Society.
{{Uw-delete1}}. Y
A user puts curse words into the article about Derek Jeter, thereby tripping an edit filter.
{{Uw-attempt}}. Y
A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
{{Uw-efsummary}}. Y
A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
{{uw-vandalism2}}. Y
A user removes all pictures from Human sexuality.
The choice of page suggests {{uw-notcensored1}}. Y
A user adds www.lyricsworld.com to Corrs and Westlife and Robbie Williams.
{{uw-spam2}}. Y
A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
{{uw-vandalism2}}. Y
A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
{{uw-defamatory1}}. Y
A user blanks Rosebud (film), for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
{{uw-delete4im}}. Y
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
Report them to AIV. Y
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).
{{uw-vandalism4im}} and then straight to AIV. Y
A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
{{uw-image1}} normally but this could also be a test edit; if the user has a prior history of test editing then I'd go to the applicable test edit template. Y

Part 3 (10%)

Marks: 7
Marks obtained: 7

What CSD tag you would put on the following articles (The content below is the article's content).

Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
{{db-g11}}. Y
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.
{{db-g3}}. Y
Fuck Wiki!
{{db-g3}}. Y
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.^[1]

References

^ Charles Barber; Shadd Maruna. "America's Prisons:The End of Second Acts?". Wilson Quarterly.

This is copied directly from the source, so {{db-g12}}. Y

Part 3 1/2

What would you do in the following circumstance:

A user blanks a page they very recently created.
Tag it for speedy deletion under {{db-g7}}. Y
After you have "speedy delete" tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
I'd place {{uw-speedy1}} on their talk page. Y
You find a page that was created by User:Flightofthewiki and edited by no one else.
Flightofthewiki is a banned sockpuppet so tag it with {{db-g5}}. Y

Part 4 (10%)

Marks: 8
Marks obtained: 8

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).

Blanchbrassband
This is a promotional username that could also indicate shared use, so I'd report it to UAA. Y
Callmeirresponsible
This is fine. Y
Brian's Bot
Unless this is an actual bot, it is misleading and I'd take it to UAA. Y
sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
This is problematic but not a violation of policy. Discussing it with the user and giving them the option to change it would be the best path. Y
Bobsysop
The use of "sysop" is misleading; report to UAA. Y
12:12, 23 June 2012
Timestamps as usernames are prohibited; report to UAA. Y
PMiller
No problems here. Y
OfficialMarkLevin
Unless this user is the real Mark Levin then it is misleading; report to UAA. Y

Part 5 (10%)

Marks: 7
Marks obtained: 6

Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.

Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
No. The 3RR rule does not apply to reverting vandalism and you cannot get into an edit war while doing so. Y
Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
WP:AIV. Y
Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
WP:AN. Y
Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
WP:UAA. Y
Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
WP:AIV. Y
Where and how should an edit war be reported?
WP:ANI.
N WP:AN/EW exists for that. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
Probably WP:BLPN. Y

Part 6 - Application on wiki (30%)

Marks: 11
Marks obtained: 10

When interacting with IPs in this section, tag their user talk pages with correct version of {{Shared IP}}. The more information (hostname, ISP) you put into the template the more helpful it will be to admins.

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.
- revert diff and warning
- revert diff and warning
- revert diff and warning

Find and revert two good faith edits, and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.
- revert diff and warning
  - N Use {{Shared IP gov}} for government-owned IPs. That was the biggest thing on Wikipedia a couple months ago: government employees editing articles. It's been on and off for years. In this case you just have some pissant civil servant but be sure to distinguish between regular people using ISPs, corporate editors, and government editors. It's not a grading criteria, but you can wikify those entities. That way if Wikipedia has an article about them any editor can easily research who they're dealing with. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- revert diff and warning Y

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

Correctly request the protection of two articles; post the diffs of your requests below.
- diff Note: the responding admin decided to ramp it up to full protection until the AFD finishes. Y
- diff Y

Correctly nominate one article for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nomination below.
- diff; nominated under G3. Y

Correctly report one username as a breach of policy.
- diff Y

Final score

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage (weighted value)
1	5	4	25	80% (.2)
2	12	12	15	100% (.15)
3	7	7	10	100% (.1)
4	8	8	10	100% (.1)
5	7	6	10	85.71% (.0857)
6	11	10	30	90.91% (.2727)
TOTAL	50			90.84% (.9084)

Graduate

Congratulations Cadillac000 on your successful completion of this CVUA program from the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with 90.84%. Well done. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2015 (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.

[1] Charles Barber; Shadd Maruna. "America's Prisons:The End of Second Acts?". Wilson Quarterly.

[1]

Start

Good faith and vandalism

Warning and reporting

Tools

Shared IP tagging

Dealing with difficult users

Page Protection

Deletion

Usernames

Progress test

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Other questions

Monitoring period

Final Exam

Part 1 (25%)

Part 2 (15%)

Part 3 (10%)

Part 3 1/2

Part 4 (10%)

Part 5 (10%)

Part 6 - Application on wiki (30%)

Final score

Graduate