User:Mz7/CVUA/Siddiqsazzad001

Hello Siddiqsazzad001, and welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your academy page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible in your answers, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me at my talk page.

Make sure you read through 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. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.

The start

Good faith and vandalism

When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. It is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labelling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.

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

Good faith (WP:AGF) are those edits, which have good intentions behind edits but result disruptive edits. Like adding unuseful information, right typo fix but turn into wrong (mistakly), edits not per Wikipedia policy and results are unhelpful.

Bad faith (also known as vandalism) are those edits, which have bad intentions behind edits. It is a kind difficult behavior to understand that what they want. Ex. Blanking whole page, adding wrong information, adding a personal name on the article, edits against Wikipedia policy etc.

You have the right understanding that the fundamental distinction between good faith and bad faith is intention. As long as the user intends to help Wikipedia, it does not matter whether how destructive their edits were, they're still considered "good faith" and should be handled differently from vandalism. To illustrate this, I can think of a few cases where some of your examples for bad-faith editing could be considered good faith. When a user blanks a page, consider why they blanked the page. If the content they removed was negative, unsourced information about living persons, then you cannot restore the content per WP:BLP. If a user adds wrong information, consider whether they simply made a mistake; if the information isn't blatantly false, consider politely asking for the source of their information before making the vandalism accusation. Mz7 (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: But the blank pages are automatically restored by ClueBot NG. Then how could we know that what the reason behind blank page. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 07:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: Right, ClueBot NG is a computer program that looks for common vandalism patterns and automatically reverts some edits. If a user blanks a page, ClueBot may possibly revert the edit, but it can sometimes make mistakes. It is up to humans to actually assess the intention behind the user removing content from page. Look at the version of the page prior to when the user removed content, and check whether the content that was removed is problematic. Is it unsourced? Is it about living persons? Could it potentially be libellous? If yes, you may want to revert ClueBot NG. If you are ever not sure whether an edit is good faith or bad faith, the standard on Wikipedia is to assume good faith. Mz7 (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2018 (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.

Good faith

[1] - This show still running on Television but going to air off, added future information

[2] added unnecessary information. Per WP:TVCAST policy I reverted it.

[3] good intention but not official website and might be spam link.

Vandalism

[4] added wrong information.

[5] removed whole section without reason.

[6] I don't know what he trying to do, but it is totally vandalism.

@Siddiqsazzad001: Good examples. Let me know whether you have any questions about my feedback above; if not, let me know and I'll post the next assignment.

Mz7 (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thanks, You can submit the next assignment. I am little bit weak in English. So please try to write in easy English language, If you want. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 07:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: I’ve posted your next assignment below. If there is any part of my language that is too complicated for you, let me know which part and I would be happy to clarify. Mz7 (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

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

Please answer the following questions

Why do we warn users?

A: To inform the user that what he/she done, which are not appropriate for Wikipedia, also that is not followed by Wikipedia policy (for both case: assumes good faith or vandalism). First, we are starting from the user talk page with general note (Level 1), which was called a notice for the assumes good faith. It is not always necessary for an editor engaging in vandalism to receive a full 4 warnings before they can be reported or blocked.

Right, the goal is to educate the users, informing them about best practices and the problems with their edits so far and to ask that they stop. Mz7 (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

A: Level 4im is also called "Only Warning". After giving final warning (Level 4), we use this warning. This warning is for those users who cross the all limits of vandalism. Generally used in the case of excessive or continuous disruption from a user or specific IP.

A level 4im is a warning we give to editors immediately. In other words, there is no need to wait until after we give a level 4 warning to give a level 4im warning. We use this warning level if a user commits vandalism that is particularly egregious or spreads across many articles; it is for vandalism that is extremely disruptive and needs to be stopped as soon as possible. Mz7 (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: Yes, you are right. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 08:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

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

A: Using Twinkle to add a substitute template or adding manually by placing subst: (after {{ the opening braces} template.

Mz7 (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

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

A: We should report and notify the Administrator intervention against vandalism of the user behaviour at ~~Wikipedia:ANI~~ Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or we can use the Twinkle report option. Also we can add {{ subst : ANI- notice }} manually.

I have a follow-up question. How would you choose between Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:ANI when reporting a user to administrators? Mz7 (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: Oh, sorry typing mistake. I would report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 08:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: What is the difference between WP:AIV and WP:ANI? Mz7 (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: Wikipedia:ANI is for report about an incidents and Wikipedia:AIV for report user. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 20:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: The difference is a bit more significant than that and more relevant to what we're discussing here. It is still possible to "report users" to WP:ANI.

If the user you are dealing with is an obvious vandal or spammer, you should report the user to WP:AIV.
If the user you are dealing with is a good faith editor making disruptive edits, you should report the user to WP:ANI and not WP:AIV.

We discussed the difference between good-faith and bad-faith editing in the previous section of the course, and this is one of the ways we differentiate our response to disruptive edits based on whether the edits are good-faith or bad-faith. Obvious vandals and spammers are usually blocked very quickly by administrators, whereas administrators will likely need an extended discussion to handle a good-faith editor being disruptive. If you have any questions about what I have written here, or if it is confusing, please don't hesitate to ask. If everything is clear, I'll post your next assignment. Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thanks, You can post for my next assignment. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 20:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: Posted below. Mz7 (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Test edits - Level 2:

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

* Test edits, which considered vandalism - Level 3:

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.

Removing of speedy deletion templates - Level 1:

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.

Vandalism - Level 4:

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.

Make sure you keep in mind that some edits that seem like vandalism can be test edits. This happens when a new user is experimenting and makes accidental unconstructive edits. Generally, these should be treated with good faith, especially if it is their first time, and warned gently. The following templates are used for test edits: {{subst:uw-test1}}, {{subst:uw-test2}} and {{subst:uw-test3}}.

I just wanted to make sure you know about Special:RecentChanges, if you use the diff link in a different window or tab you can check a number of revisions much more easily. If you enable Hovercards in the Hover section of your preferences, you can view the diff by just hovering over it. Alternately, you can press control-F or command-F and search for "tag:". some edits get tagged for possible vandalism or section blanking.

@Siddiqsazzad001: As the instructions say, please use do not provide different levels of the same warning, and do not provide the test edit warning examples that I already provided. Mz7 (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: Added a different level template. Now you can see. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 03:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: Okay, nice. I've posted your next assignment below, which is a bit longer and more involved than the assignments so far. Feel free to take as much time as you need on it and ask questions if you're not sure about something. Mz7 (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Finding and reverting vandalism

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	Mz7's Comment
1	[7]	Test edit (unsourced)	Y I would say this is clearly vandalism, not a test edit, especially considering the vandal's username, which I have hidden from the page history because it was grossly offensive. Mz7 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
2	[8]	Vandalism: note 1	Y
3	[9]	Removed content	Y
4	[10]	Test edit	Y Good
5	[11]	Blanked section without reason	Y
6	[12]	Reverted vandalism with final warning.	Y
7	[13]	Reported this IP User at AIV, for Vandalized edits only	Y [14] Good, user was blocked
8	[15]	Reported on AIV. On Kesari (film): vandalism after final warning. Pure vandalized editor. Added WWE player and pornstar name in Indian film article [16]. Added film release date without source, not only one time [17].	Y [18] Good, user was blocked
9	[19]	Added own name in Wikipedia article to promote his self. That's why I give him "Vandalism1" warrnig.	Y
10	[20]	Test edit 1	Y
11	[21]	Changing winners to defeated members without any reason. Possible Vandalism but I given "Testedit1" warning for now.	Y
12	[22]	Vandalism1	Y
13	[23]	Vandalism2	Y
14	[24]	Test edit1	? Appears to be identical to #13 above.
15	[25]	Vandalism1	Y OK

@Siddiqsazzad001: Great work on this section! No glaring issues. :) I'll post your next assignment momentarily. Mz7 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Tools

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 manually going through Special:RecentChanges, there are a large number of tool which assist users in the fight against vandalism. They range from tools which help filter and detect vandalism to tools which will revert, warn and report users. Here are a few.

Twinkle

Twinkle, as you know, is very useful. It provides three types of rollback functions (vandalism, normal and AGF) as well as an easy previous version restore function (for when there are a number of different editors vandalising in a row). Other functions include a full library of speedy deletion functions, and user warnings. It also has a function to propose and nominate pages for deletion, to request page protection to report users to WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:SPI, and other administrative noticeboards.

User creation log

In my early days of fighting vandalism on Wikipedia, one of the strategies I would use to find vandalism was to patrol the account creation log. This is located at Special:Log/newusers, and it logs every time a new user account is created on Wikipedia. You'll notice that new accounts with no contributions so far will have a red "contribs" links, whereas new accounts with some contributions will have blue "contribs" links. One great way not only to find vandalism, but welcome new users to Wikipedia is to check the blue contribs links that come in.

Rollback

See rollback, this user right introduces an easy rollback button (which with one click reverts an editor's contributions). I'll let you know when I think you're ready to apply for the rollback user right.

@Mz7: I was revoking in 16 March 2018 due to misuse. Can I get rollback right if I apply? - Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 23:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: There is a specific part in this course when I normally encourage students to apply for the right, and we haven't gotten there yet. I would wait until we get there before doing so. (It's after we cover things like usernames, speedy deletion and page protection.) Mz7 (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

STiki

STiki is an application that you download to your computer, and it provides you with diffs which either it or User:ClueBot NG have scored on their possibility of being uncontructive, and you are given the option to revert it as vandalism, revert it assuming good faith, mark it as innocent, or abstain from making a judgment on the diff. In order to use STiki, you need one of the following: (1) the rollback permission, (2) at least 1000 article edits (in the article namespace, not talk/user pages), or (3) special permission via Wikipedia talk:STiki.

Huggle

Huggle is also an application you download to your computer which presents you diffs (orders them on the likelihood of being unconstructive edits and on the editor's recent history) from users not on its whitelist. It allows you to revert vandalism, warn and reports users in one click. The rollback permission is required to use Huggle.

Dealing with difficult users

Occasionally, some vandals will not appreciate your good work and try to harass or troll you. In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, you should not engage with them and leave a note at WP:ANI. If they vandalise your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. Please read WP:DENY.

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

I just want to say the only thing that In this situation, I would like to follow WP:AVOIDYOU and WP:DENY policy. Because there is no use to talk with them. Why we care that what they think about us? If we feed them then they get stronger and giving us more personal attack slowly. I think we should be civil. So we shouldn't feed them if they troll or harass us.

The reason why we deny recognition is because recognition is exactly what they want. Whenever we give them more attention than they deserve, we are giving them what they want. Mz7 (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

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

First, I would explain the user briefly that why I reverted his edit. If he trolling or harassing me then firstly I would inform the user about WP:PERSONAL policy. If the user understands the policy and stoping trolling me, then it will be fine. But if he continue harassing me and when he cross his limit, then I would report at WP:AN/I. Most of the admins and user follow the WP:RBI, that is great.

@Siddiqsazzad001: I think you may have misunderstood the question a bit. The question is not what you would do in these two situations, but how would you tell the difference between them. If you have ever been reverted on Wikipedia, you know that it is typically not a pleasant experience, and users will sometimes get annoyed at you and post a message asking why you reverted their edit. If this happens, is the user trolling you? How can you tell? Mz7 (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: Oh! Sorry - A good-faith editors can also get angry at us. But it's important to be able to differentiate between a user who wants to make us annoyed, versus a user who is annoyed at us. If the user contributions were clearly vandalism then we can be fairly sure that they are trolling us. But if the user contributions were not clearly vandalism then we will try to see it from their point of view and discuss the matter civil way. Thank you - Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 05:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001:

Good answer. I think this goes back to our discussion earlier about telling the difference between "good faith" and "vandalism" – the key is intention. Looking at and thinking about the edits in question is a really good first step: if the edits are clearly false (e.g. "Hitler is the U.S. President"), then we can be sure that this user is not actually here to build an encyclopedia. However, in any case where there is doubt, our guideline is to assume good faith and give them respect and attention. Mz7 (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion

Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only an administrator can protect or delete pages; however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion or request protection. If you have Twinkle installed, you can use the Twinkle menu to request page protection or speedy deletion (the RPP or CSD options).

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

A: Pages should be semi protected when an article, template, user page and Wikipedia's document policy page being regular vandalized by anonymous users and registered new users, especially for Biographies of living persons article.

Good, it's for when a page is being persistently vandalized or disrupted by users who are not autoconfirmed (registered account for 4 days with 10 edits). Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

A: When we applying for pending changes protection is the depended on the rate of editing on the page. If a page has a high rate of editing then pending changes wouldn't be very effective. But if an article faces occasional though persistent disruptive editing pending changes to be the most effective.

Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

A: When a significant number of disruption or vandalism by extended confirmed users, then admin active for full protection on vandalism or disruption pages. I think the most common reason for applying full protection is definitely to stop edit wars.

Edit warring is definitely the most common reason for full protection, but it's been applied in the past for WP:BLP as well. Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

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

A: This is useful for bad articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. Such protection is case-sensitive. Pages that have been creation- protected are sometimes referred to as "salted".

Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

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

A: Article Talk pages are not usually protected, and are only semi-protected for a limited duration in the most severe cases of vandalism. And User talk pages are rarely protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users.

Right, the vandalism should be severe because we want to leave at least one venue open for anonymous editors to contribute even if the talk page's associated article is semi-protected. Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

Diff: [26] - Requested for Semi-protection because this page was vandalized by IP users many times.

Good work! Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?

A: Pages should be speedily deleted if they meet at least one criterion of a very narrow set of criteria that allow administrators to delete quickly. Criterion like: G1. Patent nonsense, G2. Test pages, G5. Creations by banned or blocked users etc.

Mz7 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2018 (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.

[27] - G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion

Mz7 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

[28] - G3: Blatant hoax

Mz7 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: Excellent work in this section! I can't find anything glaringly wrong in your responses. The next section is about usernames, after which I'll give you a progress test – after that, I'll ask you about the rollback right. Mz7 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Usernames

Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol the User creation log to check for new users with inappropriate usernames. There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed:

Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, usernames that impersonate other people, or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.
Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.

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

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

DJohnson

Looking normal, but if the user begins claiming they are Dwayne Johnson, then it would be a misleading username. Then I will report at WP:UAA.

Y Good. For this one, I wouldn't do anything unless they are claiming to be a famous person. Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
LMedicalCentre

It's look like promotional username. In this case, I would warn the user with using {{subst:uw-username}} tag on his/her talk page.

Good, but remember to make sure to wait until the user edits before doing anything. That way, we can save time not dealing with names that never edit, and we can get a better sense of the user's intentions from their contributions. Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Since my opinion was solicited here, I would say as soon as they make an edit that indicates they are trying to represent an organization, report, don’t warn. Reporting WP:ORGNAMEs is the tool of first resort. They get “soft” blocked and allowed to try again. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Fuqudik

Sounds likes offensive but If the user is contributing in good faith, then I would will not take any action but warn in their talk page. If the user is vandalizing, I would immediately report to WP:UAA without warning.

Y Yeah, it could never hurt to begin by discussing, especially if they are contributing in good faith (to avoid WP:BITE issues). However, if it's clearly bad faith, then report to WP:UAA. Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
ColesStaff

Promotional User name because the user begins claiming they are Coles staff. First I will warn in his/her talk page, if the user ignore my warning and being promote and advertise about Coles then I will report at UAA.

Y As before, wait until the user edits before deciding to report. If they are clearly advertising, a warning is typically unnecessary. Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Bobsysop

Misleading username because usernames that give the impression that the account has permissions which it does not have. In this case, I will report immediately to WP:UAA.

Y Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Bieberisgay

Disruptive or offensive usernames because the user is trolling about Justin Bieber. In this case, I report immediately to WP:UAA

Y Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
JohnBot

Usernames which could be easily misunderstood to refer to a"bot". If this account is not bot but edits like normal user. Then I will report at UAA.

Y Make sure you wait until the user edits before deciding to report. If the user is editing in good faith, in may be a good idea to discuss first before blocking to avoid WP:BITE. Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Sidiqsazad02

Misleading username because the user is trying to pretend me. In this case, I will report immediately to WP:UAA.

Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: My task is complete. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 </Talk> 04:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Siddiqsazzad001: Good work. Please let me know whether you have questions about our work so far.

As a side note, I noticed on your user page, you have the userbox {{#babel:plain=1|en}}, which states that you are a native speaker of English (meaning your first language was English). However, based on my interactions with you, I'm not sure whether you truly have a native understanding of English. The Babel template allows you specify the degree to which you know the language on a scale from 0 to 5:

{{#babel:plain=1|en-0}} means you don't understand English
{{#babel:plain=1|en-1}} means you have a basic understanding of English
{{#babel:plain=1|en-2}} means you have an intermediate understanding of English
{{#babel:plain=1|en-3}} means you have an advanced understanding of English
{{#babel:plain=1|en-4}} means you have a near-native understanding of English
{{#babel:plain=1|en-5}} means you have a professional understanding of English.
{{#babel:plain=1|en}} means that English is your native language

Do you think you could amend your user page appropriately or otherwise clarify how much you understand English? Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: Fixed. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 </Talk> 05:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: Sorry for removing these things. Because these codes was created bug on every section that makes block to editing section. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 </Talk> 05:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't realize that I had caused the "edit" buttons next to the section headers to disappear. After some fiddling around, I've managed to fix this issue. Mz7 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Progress test

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

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

Scenario 1

You encounter an IP vandalising Justin Bieber by adding in statements that he is gay.

Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?

A: Well, I would consider this a vandalism edit. Because It is clearly adding deliberately false information to a biographical article about a living person.

Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

A: It is breaching WP:BLPSOURCES under WP:BLP policy.

Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?

A: An appropriate warning template to be tagged on the IP's user talk page is {{uw-vandalism1}} or {{uw-vandalism2}}.

Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The user has now added offensive words to the article 3 times. You have reverted three times already, can you be blocked for violating the three revert rule in this case?

A: No I can't be blocked because I reverted edits that constitutes vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines WP:3RRBLP

Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}}?

A: I would use {{IPvandal}} template for reporting the user.

Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?

A: Using Twinkle, I would be tagging the page, Justin Bieber and the reason would be "Vandalism after final (level 4 or 4im) warning given".

Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Scenario 2

You see a new account called "Hi999" that has added random letters to one article.

Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?

A: This is considered a test edit, but not vandalism.

This is a good intuition. Oftentimes, random letters is someone trying to see whether they can really edit the page, which is a form of good faith editing, in my view. If the user continues doing it despite a warning, that's when it might cross the line into vandalism. Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?

A: An appropriate warning template is {{uw-test1}} for first time.

Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?

A: I will use Rollback-AGF (Green) option for assume good faith.

Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The user now has a level 3 warning on their talk page. They make a vandal edit, would it be appropriate to report this user to AIV? Why or why not?

A: Well, If the user has a level 3 warning on their talk page and make a vandal edit again then I would give level 4 warning. If the user make a vandal edit again then I would give level 4im warning and I will report the user to WP:AIV. But sometime AIV frequently becomes backlogged with reports of users that are vandalism-only accounts, even without warning. So I would limit myself only to vandals.

@Siddiqsazzad001: Could it also be appropriate to report to WP:AIV immediately after the level 3 warning, with no further warnings? Mz7 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?

A: Vandalism-only accounts are typically blocked indefinitely.