User:Chris troutman/CVUA/Negative24

This where your find new assignments and the such so that you don't clog up your user talk page. Whenever you get an assessment done just put {{Talkback|User talk:Negative24/CVUA|ts=-~~~~}} on my talk page so I can check your work. Have fun.

What is Vandalism[edit]

The most important thing about anti-vandal work is figuring out what edits are good faith edits and which are vandalism. Good faith edits are done with the intent to help, however aren't helpful. Vandalism are edits that are done just to destroy and have thorough malice. It is important to recognize the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labeling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM and complete 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 one that is intended to help Wikipedia but did not meet the requirements or expectations of a Wikipedia article or just didn't add anything useful to the article. Vandalism is an edit that's purpose is to attack or break a Wikipedia article. -24^Talk 22:36, 9 May 2014 (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 reverts in your edit history if you wish.

Good faith but not productive Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 -24^Talk 22:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 -24^Talk 22:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Anti-vandal tools[edit]

Now you could do anti vandal work the boring way by refreshing the recent changes page, however that is slow and quite tedious. If you feel like it you can try out these anti vandal tools. If you can't get them to work don't worry about it just as long as you got some anti-vandal tools in your arsenal.

Twinkle[edit]

This is a tool that I highly recommend that you get (If you haven't already). It is very easy to install and it provides users with three types of rollback functions and includes a full library of speedy deletion functions, user warnings and welcomes, maintenance tags, and semi-automatic reporting of vandals. When I first found it the number of vandalism I reverted nearly tripled.

Got it I agree. Can't live without it. -24^Talk 22:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Huggle[edit]

This is another useful tool that you can use. It can be a bit tricky to get to work at first (Especially if you don't use Windows). However the rewards are great. Huggle allows for quite speedy reverts of vandalism and is the backbone of Wikipedia's anti-vandal front. I would recommend it if you like quick and speedy reverts of vandalism.

Can't I've installed it but I don't have rollback. -24^Talk 22:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Update Got rollback and have tried Huggle. A little confusing but useful. -24^Talk 15:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

STiki[edit]

This is useful for getting vandalism that got past the radar. It takes some installation however it's worth it. With this tool I've gotten vandalism that was on a page for over 3 months.

Can't I've downloaded it but I don't have the privileges (2000 edits, rollback, or special permission). -24^Talk 22:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Update Got permission from the talk page. Good tool! -24^Talk 02:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Lupin/Anti-vandal tool[edit]

This anti-vandal tool can be described as an old truck, not the most shiny or fast tool out there, however it chugs along blowing vandalism out of its way. Call me crazy, but I used it for over a year and whenever I can't get one of the newer tools to work I'll fall back to using this tool because it is so reliable.

Not done Never tried it. -24^Talk 22:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Update Got it. -24^Talk 02:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have also tried igloo, undo, and rollback (Twinkle). -24^Talk 22:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Warnings[edit]

Good job with getting Twinkle and identifying good faith edits vs vandalism. I got another assignment here that I think that you can get finished with quickly.

When you use Twinkle to warn a user you have a number of options to choose from: you can select the kind of warning (for different offences), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4, for increasing severity). Knowing which warning to issue and what level is very important. Further information can be found at WP:WARN and WP:UWUL.

Please answer the following questions

Why do we warn users? We warn users to inform them of their mistakes. We should always AGF and attempt to correct their ways. It lets them know of the policies of WP. -24^Talk 17:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

When would a 4im warning be appropriate? A 4im warning would be appropriate when it is obvious when a user is in bad faith. It can also be used if the user is making an overwhelming number of vandalism edits and it would be silly to warn the user for every one of them. -24^Talk 22:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Warning templates should be substituted when placing them because it looks as if the template text was typed out by the user that placed it. A template can be substituted by appending a "subst:" before the template name. An example could be {{subst:uw-test1}}. -24^Talk 22:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If a user has vandalized twice but has not received any warnings for it, what would you do? The user should be warned with the first level template because it could be that the user was editing in good faith but they didn't know that they were doing something wrong because they weren't warned before. -24^Talk 22:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalizes again? A user that has received a level 4 or 4im warning should be reported to AIV to have an admin check the user and see if a block would be necessary. -24^Talk 22:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please give examples (using {{Tlsubst|''name of template''}}) of three different warnings (not different levels of the same warning), that you might need to use while patrolling recent changes and explain what they are used for. Some warning that are needed while patrolling recent changes could include: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} {{subst:uw-test1}} {{subst:uw-delete1}}

-24^Talk 22:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Make sure you keep in mind that some edits that seem like vandalism can be test edits. This happens when a new user is experimenting and makes accidental unconstructive edits. Generally, these should be treated with good faith, especially if it is their first time, and warned gently. Use the edit test warning from Twinkle to warn users who have performed edit tests.

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

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff	Marker's comment (optional)
1	diff	My first report to AIV. AIV diff here.	Y
2	diff	AIV report #2 - AIV diff here.	Y
3	diff	Test edit #1	Y
4	diff	Test edit #2	Y
5	diff	Vandalism #1	Y
6	diff	Vandalism #2	Y
7	diff	Vandalism #3	Y
8	diff	Vandalism #4	Y
9	diff	Vandalism #5	Y
10	diff	Vandalism #6	Y

-24^Talk 00:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Question: What do you mean by "marker's comment". Do you mean the vandalizing user's comment? -24^Talk 00:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I know that this is a bit of a tall order however it should be the only really large assignment here. Just a note for the past few days my internet's been flaky at best so I'll be on and off however I should be on #wikipedia-en from 16:00-17:00 UTC today. Good luck and happy editing!--Jeffrd10 (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Good Job with the assignment And Don't worry about the one User MusicMajor giving you a hard time on your talk page you can get that from time to time this on IP hassn't done anything else but hurass me. and I should have made it more clear but the marker notes was for me if something was wrong with your revert. As per you going on a long wiki break I understand completely and I myself will be taking a break soon for Personal reasons. --Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

MusicMajor wasn't that bad. I could revert all of his trouble with Twinkle. It was just startling because it was my first incident. Do you have another assignment before I go on my wikibreak (should happen in about a week)? -24^Talk 21:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Tools[edit]

Negative24 at your request I'm taking over your training. You'll find I teach a little differently from Jeffrd10. Some of what we'll go over may seem repetitive but I have my reasons.

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.

Rollback can be used when the edit is clearly vandalism and an edit summary isn't needed.
It can always be used to revert your own edits or edits in your userspace.
It can also be used to mass revert edits when an explanation is made on a talk page or other appropriate place.
Edits made by banned users can be rolled-back.

-24^Talk 17:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

Shared IP tagging[edit]

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	Marker's comment (optional)
1	[1]	Y
2	[2]	Y
3	[3]	Y
4	[4]	Y
5	[5]	Y

Note: It seems that Huggle substitutes the template. -24^Talk 18:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

None of these are diffs and I don't see any use of {{Shared IP}}. Read my instructions and try again. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I forgot that the {{Shared IP advice}} isn't the same as {{Shared IP}}. I've updated the pages with the new templates. As for the diffs, those talk pages were created by me when I placed the notices, therefore, I wouldn't be able to show a diff since there was no previous revision to compare to. -24^Talk 18:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

In the future, please put banner templates at the top of the talk page, not below your comments. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users[edit]

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?: We deny recognition because if we did then vandals and trolls would take it as a sign that they are being successful in what they do. -24^Talk 02:56, 2 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?: A good faith user would try to be a better editor and would ask for help, whereas, a troll would just try harm the encyclopedia. -24^Talk 02:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Y

Note: I have already had a bit of experience with vandalism on my talk page. I was hit with some vandalism from MusicMajor420-69-A (talk · contribs) in May. It wasn't a big deal and was swiftly dealt with. -24^Talk 02:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Page Protection[edit]

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?

A page should be semi-protected if it is often vandalized by new or inexperienced users. -24^Talk

Chris Troutman (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

PC1 protections can be used as an alternative to semi-protecting an article when constructive work can be made by new or inexperienced users but there still is a risk of vandalism. -24^Talk

Chris Troutman (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

A page should be fully protected if an article is being vandalized often by registered users past the autoconfirmed threshold. -24^Talk

Chris Troutman (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

A page should be salted if it keeps on being recreated with the same or similar vandalism. -24^Talk

You'll see this more often with articles about non-notable subjects that keep getting re-created after being deleted by discussion. Ever since the 2005 lock-down you don't see users creating attack pages so much. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

A talk should be semi-protected if edit-warring or user arguments are often taking place. It should only be done as a last resort and only temporarily. -24^Talk

There are two ways you'll run into this: either a blocked user will use their talk page to attack editors or you'll have vandals harass a user on their talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Some potential problems are:

Confusing editing. Users have to resolve edit conflicts and multiple 'current' revisions. May not be user friendly for new users.
Editors may be confused as to why their edit isn't shown on the page.
More workload on editors (reviewers).
Needed edits may not be reflected on the page that is shown to the general public (such as recent events) and may cause more edits that edit the same thing over the same topic.

-24^Talk 04:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This is always a matter of striking a balance between enough control to prevent vandalism and enough latitude to allow constructive editing. PC1 is less restrictive than semi-protect but it requires the intervention of reviewers. If you want to protect an article, PC1 is an easier sell than semi-protect. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

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 it has no possibility of surviving, such as nonsense and other types of vandalism on new pages. -24^Talk

You want to stick to the codified CSD reasons, which I think are broad enough. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

When is speedy deletion not the best measure?

Speedy deletion is no the best when a page has a chance of surviving, can be improved, or is disagreed on by other editors. -24^Talk

You can have an article CSD'd a hundred times. If it's deleted via AfD you can have it CSD'd after that for re-creation of same. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2015 (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 or Julija jereb for G1
Diff or Fatawa+razawiya for A3

-24^Talk 22:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris Troutman (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Usernames[edit]

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 Using real names are ok. I think I know someone that does. -24^Talk Y Unless you're Barbara Schwarz? Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Blanchbrassband I don't know if this is a band but if it is then it is promotional. -24^Talk Y Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Sukhdeep.055 Offensive. -24^Talk Y Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Παράδειγμα Other than being a pain for those of us with regular keyboards, this should be ok (there are people with worse). -24^Talk Y Non-latin characters become an issue when editors push for adminship. Prior to that it's just a hassle. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Dickwad115 Offensive. -24^Talk Y Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thefutonshop Promotional. -24^Talk Y Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

~~~~ Misleading. -24^Talk Y Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

172.295.64.27 Also misleading. Tries to mimic an IP address. -24^Talk Y Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing Ok. -24^Talk Y Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Bieberisgay Offensive. -24^Talk Y Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

SuperEditBot Tries to mimic a bot's username. -24^Talk Y Unless it indicates on the user page it is indeed, a bot. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

78.26 Ok. -24^Talk Y Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The real Barbara Schwarz Misleading. -24^Talk Y Well, if it isn't the real Barbara Schwarz. WP:REALNAME lays this out. 99% of the time this username would be a problem, and since WMF doesn't "identify" Wikipedians (with few exceptions) this would be an issue. Just remember what the policy says. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Jesus hates FAGS!! Offensive. -24^Talk Y Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Call me LORDiNFAMOUS Seems alright. -24^Talk Y Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

-24^Talk 01:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Progress test[edit]

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 then 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[edit]

You see a new account called "LaptopsInc" which has created a new page called "Laptops Inc" (which only contains the words "Laptops Inc" and a few lines of text copied from the company's website). The user also added "www.laptopsinc.com" on the Laptop article. You research Laptops Inc on Google and find that is a small company.

Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option would you use?

Yes, since this is obvious advertising I would use Twinkle's vandalism rollback. -24^Talk

Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

Probably {{uw-advert1}} or {{uw-spam1}}. -24^Talk

Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2015 (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, since, again, it is advertising I would tag it with CSD G11. -24^Talk

Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2015 (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}} since their name is obviously promotional. -24^Talk

Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I would discuss it with the user. They can have it changed or they can choose to not edit anymore (since their original purpose may have been just to advertise). -24^Talk

-24^Talk 02:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your method would be fine but technically the user name is a blatant violation. The disruptive usernames are the ones to block on sight but the promotional ones usually go through WP:CHU since they want to stay on Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Scenario 2[edit]

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

Are these edits vandalism?

They are a form of it. Although less in severity (since it may just be a new editor), editing tests are still bad on the wiki. -24^Talk

Remember that we want to treat single test edits lightly, assuming good faith. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I would leave {{uw-test2}} or {{uw-test3}} since they have already done it more than once. -24^Talk

I'm a fan of using {{uw-selfrevert}}. It's softer than the test warnings but still carries the message that test edits aren't ok. We want to retain good editors, if we can. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

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

It doesn't that much. An IP can be used by more than one person so the previous warnings could have been to a different person but since I already said I would start with a level 2 or 3 warning I wouldn't up the level any further. -24^Talk

We don't use warning templates as shaming devices. 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. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2015 (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?

Since the commits are happening in such a short time frame I would report to AIV. -24^Talk

Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2015 (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 request that their block be put in place again for longer time or even indef since the IP is only going to be used for vandalism. -24^Talk

-24^Talk 02:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle includes a little check-block for vandalism immediately following release of a block, so use it. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Scenario 3[edit]

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

Since the reason is unknown from the blank edit summary, I would revert with a warning of blanking content. -24^Talk

While editors are empowered to remove unsourced information, edit summaries are still expected. You can always use a level 1 warning assuming good faith and let them remove for a second time using a fair rationale. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Now it truly is unclear what the reasoning is. I would revert and warn with a higher level. -24^Talk

Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I would revert (AGF) but with an even higher warning. -24^Talk

Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Not wanting to start an edit war, I would ask them to dispute it on the talk page of the article. -24^Talk

Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I would continue to ask them to move their discussion to the talk page but eventually I would take the case to ANI. -24^Talk

-24^Talk 02:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Remember WP:AN/EW is there for edit-warring. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Scenario 4[edit]

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 issue a level 2, 3, or 4 depending on the severity of the vandalism. -24^Talk

Don't forget IPs are not people. While a single static IP might be used by the same person over the span of many months you want to be careful not to attribute activity today to the same IP quite a while ago. You can also chastise those other editors with {{uw-warn}}, although I don't recommend it. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I would consider the account to be a vandalism-only account (since it can't be owned by multiple people) and issue a 4im warning or report to AIV. -24^Talk

-24^Talk 02:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Monitoring period[edit]

Congratulations, @Negative24:! 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. You've completed this in record time so this next stage won't last more than a couple days. 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) 04:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Sounds good. I'll begin tomorrow. Just so you know, I've joined the 2015 Wikicup so you may see some regular article edits as well as other stuff along with my counter-vandalism. Thanks, -24^Talk 05:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow. WikiCup is some serious competition. Give me a couple days worth of countervandalism and I'll give you the final test so you can get underway. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Final Exam[edit]

To editor Negative24: This is the CVUA test I've designed; 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 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%)[edit]

Marks: 5
Marks obtained: 4.5

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).

A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article. What would you do if it was their first warning? What about after that?
- I would revert it with the AGF button on Twinkle and warn the user about test edits.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 would revert it again but eventually I would have to take the edits as being vandalism.Y
A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?
- I would revert it as biased content and would warn the user accordingly.Y
A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article more than once?
- Since this looks like a test edit, I would revert and use the test edit warning templates.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?
- I would revert it as vandalism and warn against deleting content.
Y Your answer is incomplete. Revert and warn but try to push discussion on the talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Part 2 (15%)[edit]

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.

A user blanks Malta University Historical Society.
{{subst:uw-delete1}}
Y I should've addressed this earlier so I won't count it against you, but you don't have to start warnings at level one. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
A user puts curse words into the article about Derek Jeter, thereby tripping an edit filter.
{{subst:uw-vand1}}
N Use {{uw-attempt}}. My question prompts this response. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
{{subst:uw-efsummary}}
Y
A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
{{subst:uw-vand1}}
Y
A user removes all pictures from Human sexuality.
{{subst:uw-notcensored1}}
Y
A user adds www.lyricsworld.com to Corrs and Westlife and Robbie Williams.
{{subst:uw-spam3}}
Y
A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
{{subst:uw-vand1}}
Y Again, take a look at the level 1 templates. They're worded to allow the possibility that you made a mistake. This is no mistake.
A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
{{subst:uw-bio1}}
Y biog, not bio; bio is a redirect to biog
A user blanks Rosebud (film), for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
{{subst:uw-delete4im}}
Y
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
Report 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).
{{subst:uw-npa2}}, {{subst:uw-npa3}}, or ANI
Y You could also use uw-upv but npa is a better choice
A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
{{subst:uw-image1}}
Y

Part 3 (10%)[edit]

Marks: 7
Marks obtained: 6

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 I'd've chosen G3 but G11 works, too.
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.
{{db-g10}}
N I can see why you made that choice but this is an obvious WP:COPYVIO so G12 is the right choice. It's not defamation to call someone a criminal if there's sources indicating it's true.
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-g10}}
Y I'd've chosen G3 but G10 works.

Part 3 1/2[edit]

What would you do in the following circumstance:

A user blanks a page they very recently created.
Per WP:CSD blank pages should be taken as a request for deletion and should be tagged with {{db-g7}}.
Y
After you have "speedy delete" tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
I would replace the tag and point the user at the CSD page specifically the parts about removal of CSD tags and page blanking and maybe WP:BLANK.
Y
You find a page that was created by User:Flightofthewiki and edited by no one else.
User:Flightofthewiki is blocked so it should be tagged with {{db-g5}}.
Y

Part 4 (10%)[edit]

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
Report to UAA as promotional.Y
Callmeirresponsible
Ok.Y
Brian's Bot
Not a bot. Report to UAA.Y
sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
Since this username isn't in clear violation of the policy, I would discuss it with an administrator and the user. Perhaps they could get it changed? Y
Bobsysop
Not a sysop. Report to UAA. Y
12:12, 23 June 2012
Confusing. Report to UAA. Y
PMiller
Ok. Y
OfficialMarkLevin
Unless it is verified this is a violation of policy. Report to UAA. Y

Part 5 (10%)[edit]

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)?
Vandalism should always be reverted, therefore, reverting vandalism isn't edit warring.
Y This will be an issue from time to time. Be certain what you're reverting is vandalism. Some people get dragged to ANEW and one party claims they were just reverting vandalism.
Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
AIV Y
Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
ANI
N Use AN. ANI is set up for specific incidents User X keeps blanking article Y. It's not set up to address longterm patterns.
Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
UAA Y
Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
ANI Y
Where and how should an edit war be reported?
AN/EW Y
Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
BLP/N Y

Part 6 - Application on wiki (30%)[edit]

Marks: 11
Marks obtained: 11

When interacting with IPs in this section, tag their user talk pages with correct version of {{Shared IP}}. The more information 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 and report to AIV below Y
Revert and report to AIV below Y
Revert and Shared IP notice Y

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

Revert, Welcome, and Shared IP notice Y
Revert, Welcome, and Shared IP notice Y

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

Report Y
Report Y

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

Request Y
Request Y

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

CSD G11 also reported username below (same name; obviously a pure promotional account) Y

Correctly report one username as a breach of policy.

Report Y

Final score[edit]

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage
1	5	4.5	25	90% (.225)
2	12	11	15	91.7% (.1376)
3	7	6	10	85.7% (.0857)
4	8	8	10	100% (.1)
5	7	6	10	85.7% (.0857)
6	11	11	30	100% (.3)
TOTAL	50	46.5		93.4% (.934)

Graduate[edit]

Congratulations Negative24 on your successful completion of this CVUA program from the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with 93.4%. Well done. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:55, 6 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.

What is Vandalism[edit]

Anti-vandal tools[edit]

Twinkle[edit]

Huggle[edit]

STiki[edit]

Lupin/Anti-vandal tool[edit]

Warnings[edit]

Tools[edit]

Shared IP tagging[edit]

Dealing with difficult users[edit]

Page Protection[edit]

Deletion[edit]

Usernames[edit]

Progress test[edit]

Scenario 1[edit]

Scenario 2[edit]

Scenario 3[edit]

Scenario 4[edit]

Other questions[edit]

Monitoring period[edit]

Final Exam[edit]

Part 1 (25%)[edit]

Part 2 (15%)[edit]

Part 3 (10%)[edit]

Part 3 1/2[edit]

Part 4 (10%)[edit]

Part 5 (10%)[edit]

Part 6 - Application on wiki (30%)[edit]

Final score[edit]

Graduate[edit]