User:Blague7/CVUA/JJPMaster

Hello JJPMaster, 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 CVUA curriculum

There are several sections of the training course. In some of them, will be asking you to do perform practical exercises; in others, I will ask you to read certain policies and guidelines, and then ask you some questions about their content. To be clear, it is not a problem if you give the wrong answer to any of the questions - making mistakes and discussing them is a crucial part of the learning process. For that reason, it is important that you do not attempt to find previous users' training pages in order to identify the 'right' answers to give: all your answers should be your own, so that we can identify and address any misconceptions that you might have. There is no time pressure to complete the course: we will go at whatever pace works for you, and you can take a pause or ask questions at any point along the way.

Communication

Counter-vandalism work can result in very large watchlists, which can make it more difficult to monitor pages using that alone. For this reason, I will ping you whenever I update this page with some feedback or a new task; I would also ask you to ping me when you have completed a task, so that I get a notification telling me that it's ready for review. See WP:PING for details on how to do this if you aren't sure. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 20:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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. While it is often necessary to revert such edits, we treat them differently from vandalism, so it is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the tasks in this section.

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 that is made with good intentions, but may still be unconstructive, whereas a vandalism edit is one made with the obvious intention of harming the encyclopedia. I would immediately know that an edit is vandalism if it is so erroneous that it couldn't possibly be made in good faith, such as replacing an article's content with "fuck you glenn" or something like that. A good faith edit would likely be an edit that would be fine normally, but, for instance, is unsourced, or is borderline advertising (obvious advertising would fall under the vandalism category for me).

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. Place diffs below.

Good faith edits:

1. Special:Diff/967272571 (I found this while aimlessly scrolling through Oshwah's talk page archives)

Y

2. Special:Diff/994060698

Y

3. Special:Diff/994058543

Y

Vandalism:

1. Special:Diff/994057867

N. I'd revert as good faith — remember, when in doubt, WP:AGF.

2. Special:Diff/994057368

Y

3. Special:Diff/994044474

Y

I found the vandalism edits from all of the things I have reverted using Huggle as "nonconstructive edits", so they may not be the most vandally. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

JJPMaster, see my notes, mostly good. Next section below, and remember to ping me. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 21:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

A note about RedWarn

Use either the green, blue, or red "rollback" links, since they save a more relevant edit summary

Hopefully you'll have noticed that RedWarn allows you three options for performing a rollback - green, blue, and red links (see the screenshot). All three will revert all of the most recent consecutive edits made by a single user to a page. The orange button should only be used when a user blanks a large portion of the page without an edit summary.

Try to use these buttons where possible. The green and the blue ones allow you to add an edit summary - it's described as 'optional', but you should not treat it as such - always leave a brief edit summary, even if it's just 'Rv test edit', or 'Rv unexplained removal of content', or whatever. Use the green one when you think it's a good faith mistake, and the blue one when you're not sure. Only use the red one when you are certain that it is unambiguous vandalism - it saves time, because it leaves a generic edit summary, and all of them will take you directly to the talk page of the person you have reverted, to allow you to use the 'Warn' option to give them a warning. (Also note that you can use the purple "restore this version" button when you need to revert edits by multiple users.)

Warning and reporting

When you use RedWarn 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 note that most of this is automated on RedWarn; you'll need to pick this only if you pick the blue button.

Please answer the following questions

Why do we warn users?

Generally at first to notify them of appropriate guidelines and policies, and over time, to very politely ask them to stop.

Y

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

They are used to stop excessive or persistent vandalism and disruption, such as adding serious libelous content to multiple pages at once.

Y — or if they've vandalized 4 time before and haven't received a warning.

Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it? (Hint - read the link before answering!)

Yes; you do it by adding "subst:" to the front of the template link: link {{subst:Uw-bes4im}}

Y

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

Report the user to administrator intervention against vandalism.

Y

Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. For each revert/warning please fill in a line on the table below. If you have trouble with the wiki markup, tell me and we'll get it sorted out.

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff	Trainer's Comment
1	Special:Diff/999814470	no comment	Y, what you did is fine, but the intent behind the edit probably wasn't malicious, so I'd AGF.
2	Special:Diff/999975372	Isn't that vandally, is more simple disruptive editing, but I reverted it anyway, as it is not constructive.	Y — again, I'd AGF because the intent behind the edit wasn't bad. The revert was good though
3	Special:Diff/999981611	Was already reported to AIV.	Y
4	Special:Diff/999981837	Technically wasn't vandalism, was however disruptive.	Y, they removed it again, but it was sourced, and people who rm controversy sections are usually whitewashing it or are ardent fans
5	Special:Diff/999982498	Surpised this didn't get picked up by filter 614.	Y
6	Special:Diff/999983339	What?	Y
7	Special:Diff/999983336	If you see an edit summary like "I made it better" or "Added the truth", be very suspicious.	Y — wisdom right there
8	Special:Diff/999983868	I have no idea how this happened.	Y, yeah, surprised the abuselog didn't pick that up.
9	Special:Diff/999984140	Gotta throw in some personal attacks!	Y —it's not Wikipedia without some of those!
10	Special:Diff/999984856	Finishin' it off with some patent nonsense!	Y Yes of course I love iasrfgisyg

Courtesy ping: Thanoscar21. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 23:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: Mostly good, though do see my notes. Next section below! Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 01:50, 13 January 2021 (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. You can use the RedWarn menu (on the right-hand side, the RPP option) to request page protection or the Twinkle speedy deletion (the TW menu next to the search bar on top, the RPP option. For speedy deletion, you'll have to use Twinkle, the CSD option).

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

1. Persistent IP vandalism or BLP violations, generally temporarily

2. Edit warring by non-autoconfirmed editors

3. Sockpuppetry

Y

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

Generally, a page should only be pending-changes-protected in cases where semi-protection could also apply, or as an addition to semi-protection, such as on RfPP I see "semi-protected for 3 days, pending changes protected for 6 months" quite a lot.

Y

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

1. Severe edit warring (generally including extended-confirmed users)

2. Undeletion of pages for review at DRV

3. Pages in the MediaWiki namespace (are automatically permanently protected)

4. Highly visible pages or templates

Y

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

1. If the page is repeatedly recreated and deleted

Y

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

1. In case of persistent disruption, but only in the most exceptional cases (I've seen a talk page extended-confirmed-protected before, see User talk:Realjamesh.)

Y

Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request at WP:RPP below. (Note - it might take you a while to come across a circumstance where this is required - we can continue with the next section of the course before you do this, but when the need arises please post here and ping me).

I have not found such an article yet, so can we continue the course for now? Courtesy ping: Thanoscar21. Also, on the "suffrage" article when I reverted vandalism, I linked the wrong diff, I meant to link Special:Diff/999814470. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 02:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

JJPMaster, all good! You can submit this problem later, no problem. Next section below. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 02:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: fix ping. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 02:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

If and only if the page meets the strict criteria for speedy deletion, which generally applies to pages where the page is so erroneous that it must be fundamentally rewritten before being Wikipedia-compliant.

Y

Speedy deletion examples

In past iterations of this course, students have been asked to go out and actually tag pages for deletion, but with the introduction of WP:ACPERM, the amount of straight vandalism that gets created directly in mainspace has reduced dramatically. As such, I'm going to ask you to say how you would act in a set of hypothetical scenarios. What would you do if you saw the page listed in each scenario? Note that not all scenarios may warrant speedy deletion.

Scenario 1

A user with the username "BobSucks" creates an article called "John Smith" that contains solely the following text:

John Smith is the worst elementary school teacher on the planet.

In this scenario, the criterion that applies is G10, attack pages. Before tagging it for G10 deletion, I should blank the page first.

Y, A7 would also work.

Scenario 2

A user with the username "GoodTimesLLC" creates a user page with the following text:

'''Good Times LLC''' is an organization dedicated to helping your children get the highest quality education at an affordable price. Visit our website at goodtimes.info and contact us at 123-456-7890.

I would tag the page for deletion as G11 advertising, but I would also report the user to usernames for administrator attention, given the fact that their username is very obviously promotional.

Y, if you CSD tag it, when an admin comes around, they'll indef block the user, so you don't need to take it to UAA.

Scenario 3

A user creates an article titled "Edward Gordon" with the following text:

'''Edward Gordon''' (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 5,000 subscribers on YouTube.

I would tag this for deletion under A7. It is a self-written vanity page that does not credibly indicate why its subject is important.

Y

Scenario 4

A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content:

Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz.

(Attribution: Ritchie333 came up with this scenario as a question to an old RfA candidate. I've borrowed his example here. Hint: Try Google searching a few key terms from this short article.)

Bazz Ward is a real person who was a roadie, in the company of Lemmy. I'm not sure if I'd A7 this one, given the fact that I feel like there is some credible claim of significance due to being a roadie from a notable band, The Nice, but I would personally G11 it, given the tone of the article.

This one's tricky. I'd redirect it to The Nice.

Scenario 5

A user creates an article that was clearly copied and pasted directly from another website, which states "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom of it. Would your answer be the same if it didn't state "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom? If "all rights reserved" is written at the bottom, that means one of two things:

1. The entire website including the copyright notice was copied

2. The creator owns the copyright.

In the second case, this call would be harder, because that means that it still meets G12 as a copyvio, because, despite the fact that the creator is the copyright holder, it isn't protected by a CC BY-SA compatible license (all rights reserved implies full copyright protection), therefore it can't be retained.

Y, G12 on both

Scenario 6

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.

1. Check to see if the same article was copied from another Wikimedia project. If so, tag it for deletion under A2. If not,

2. Add it to the pages needing translation into English noticeboard and add the {{notenglish}} template to it.

Y

Scenario 7

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content. Tag it for deletion under G7, unless it is a user page, in which case don't do anything.

N, if a user blanks a user page, it's taken to mean as a U5.

Question: how does CSD relate to counter-vandalism exactly? Courtesy ping: Thanoscar21. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 12:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, JJPMaster, while patrolling RC, new pages also come up. All good, next section below. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 17:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision Deletion and Oversight

Please read WP:REVDEL and WP:OVERSIGHT.

Occasionally, vandalism will be so extreme that it needs to be removed from publicly accessible revision histories - the criteria for these are described in the articles above. Revision deletion hides the edit from anyone except admins; oversight provides an even greater level of restriction, with only oversighters able to see the comments. The threshold between the two is quite fine - I've been on the wrong side of it a few times. If you are in doubt as to whether revdel or oversight is required, the best bet is to forward it to the oversight team - whoever reviews it will be able to make the decision and act on it.

If you believe an edit needs to be revision deleted, how would you request that?

Either contact an admin directly (in general cases), add the {{copyvio-revdel}} template (if it is a copyvio), or go to the #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect IRC channel and request there (if the matter is urgent; if it meets WP:RD2, WP:RD3, or WP:RD4).

Y, email as well.

If you believe that it's so serious it needs oversight, how would you request that?

The fastest way to get the attention of the oversight team is by emailing them (oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org), by going to the aforementioned IRC channel and typing !oversight (do not post diffs), or by emailing an oversighter directly. Courtesy ping: Thanoscar21. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 17:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Y

@JJPMaster: Good, next section below. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 17:38, 13 January 2021 (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 (note that you can set this to view 500 users rather than the default 50 - I find that easier to scroll through quickly, and the link on my userpage takes you there directly). 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 (words like admin, sysop etc), usernames that impersonate other people (either famous people, or other Wikipedians' usernames), or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
• Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.
• Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
• Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.

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

Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why). If you need more information before deciding what to do, explain what more you need.

BGates

Misleading - This appears to be trying to impersonate Bill Gates, and I would indeed report it to UAA.

N, it could be Bob Gates or something, but if they try an impersonate Bill Gates, then you'd take it to WP:UAA

LMedicalCentre

Promotional - This username is just the name of a medical center. I would also check the user's edits to ensure that this editor isn't, for example, adding promotional content to articles about the L Medical Centre.

Y

G1rth Summ1t

Misleading - This is trying to impersonate Girth Summit.

Y

JoeAtBurgerKing

I'm not sure what I'd do here, I think I'd honestly just leave it be, because it does actually describe the user as an individual.

Y

JoeTheSysop

Misleading - A very cookie-cutter case of misleading usernames here, but I'd probably make sure to check if Joe actually is a sysop just for fun.

Y

JJPMA$TER

Very misleading. I am in no way affiliated with someone with that username.

Y, sure, why not?

J0E B1DEN

Misleading - I'd also check if these edits were pointy, except politically instead of Wikipedia-y.

Y

Yallaredumb

Disruptive - Does this count as a personal attack?

Y

Oshwaah

Misleading - Please do not impersonate Oshwah.

Y

😜

This username is prohibited under the username policy, unless they registered before November 2017.

Y

Than0scar21

Misleading - is this you? No? Well if not, then it's an impersonator, time for UAA!

Y: UAA indeed

JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 17:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

JJPMaster, all good, next section below. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 18:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Emergencies

I hope this never happens, but as you participate in counter-vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible that you may come across a threat of physical harm. In the past, we have had vandals submit death threats in Wikipedia articles, as well as possible suicide notes. The problem is, Wikipedia editors don't have the proper training to evaluate whether these threats are credible in most cases.

Fortunately, there's a guideline for cases like this. Please read Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm carefully and respond to the questions below.

Who should you contact when you encounter a threat of harm on Wikipedia? What details should you include in your message?

Contact the Wikimedia Foundation by emailing emergencywikimedia.org, followed by contacting an admin directly (consider also requesting RevDel). Make sure to include the name of the article where the threat was made and/or a diff.

Y

What should you do if an edit looks like a threat of harm, but you suspect it may just be an empty threat (i.e. someone joking around)?

Treat all threats of harm seriously; let the Foundation determine if the threat is serious. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 18:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Y

JJPMaster, all good. This only happened to me twice, so it's really rare. Next section below. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 19:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

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?

​A lot of vandals and trolls vandalize or troll in order to solicit a reaction out of someone, or provoke them. They believe that the "recognition" they receive is empowering them, or otherwise making them feel like they're important in one way or another. if we WP:DENY this recognition from the vandals, they will lose part of their motivation to vandalize, and will therefore eventually lead them to stopping and crying themselves to sleep. Courtesy ping 1: Thanoscar21. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 19:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Y, they will indeed by crying themselves to sleep, but sometimes not before filing an SPI or going to ANI. Just thought that was necessary.

JJPMaster, all good. Next section below. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 20:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Rollback

In light of your recent contributions, I expect that if you apply for the rollback permission at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, an administrator would be happy to enable it on your account, but first we should demonstrate that you understand what the tool is, and the responsibilities that go along with it.

The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced counter vandalism operatives to revert vandalism with the click of one button, not unlike the "rollback" button that you've already been using in Twinkle. This would give you a new rollback button in addition to the three you've been seeing in Twinkle. The new rollback button is slightly faster than the Twinkle rollback button, but more importantly, having the rollback right gives you access to downloadable counter-vandalism software like Huggle and Stiki.

If you're interested, take a look at our rollback guideline at WP:Rollback and feel free to answer the questions below. The rollback right is not an essential part of this course, so if you're not interested, feel free to say so and we'll skip this section.

Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.

Rollback is supposed to be used in the following cases:

1. Reverting obvious vandalism or obvious BLP violations

2. Reverting edits made to your userspace

3. Reverting your own edits

4. Reverting edits made by banned or blocked users in violation of said bans or blocks

5. "Mass rollback"; reverting a large number of unconstructive edits by a user or malfunctioning bot at once.

Y

Hopefully this will never happen, but it does occasionally. If you accidentally use rollback, what should you do?

When I accidentally use rollback... I... rollback my accidentally rollback, albeit using this tool to give an edit summary. If you prefer, you can use a different reverting tool such as Twinkle to do your revert.

Y

Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?

No. Rollback's edit summary usually says "Reverted edits by Cabayi to last version by Thanoscar21" or something like that. If you wish, you can use another tool that allows you to add a rollback summary, like the one that I previously mentioned (which also happens to be the one I use). Courtesy ping: Thanoscar21. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 21:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Y

JJPMaster, all systems go! The final exam is below, take as much time as you need on it, and good luck. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 21:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Final Exam

Please read each of the following questions carefully, and ensure that you have responded fully - some of them ask you to expand on what you would do in different situations. When responding to numbered questions please start your response with "#:" (except where shown otherwise - with **). You don't need to worry about signing your answers.

Part 1

For each of these examples, please state whether you would call the edit(s) described as vandalism or good faith edit, a reason for that, and how you would deal with the situation (ensuring you answer the questions where applicable).

1. A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article, having never edited before. Would you treat it differently if they had done the same thing once before?

   I would treat it differently. I wouldn't, for instance, immediately report a user to AIV if they did that once, so as to not WP:BITE them. If they did it again, I would treat it more seriously. At first, I would treat it as good faith, until eventually I begin to treat it as vandalism if it is frequent enough, as it is possible that the user was trying to test, or that the user accidentally put that.

   Y

2. A user adds their signature to an article after once 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 politely remind them not to do that. If they do it too many times, I may treat it as an WP:OWN-type behavior and deal with it accordingly. I would never consider that vandalism, as I highly doubt anyone would do that intentionally.

   Y, if they continue to add sigs even after being warned, then you should revert as vandalism.

3. A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?

   Revert it, and give the user a {{subst:uw-npov1}} or {{subst:uw-advert1}} warning. After that, continue to revert it, until the user has received a level 4 warning. I would probably treat it as good faith, but if it is done enough, I would consider it to be disruptive, but not as pure vandalism.

   Y — I should have clarified, if they continue to disruptively edit after receiving warnings, then revert as vandalism.

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

   Revert, add a {{subst:uw-test1}}. After that, revert, {{subst:uw-test2}} et cetera. I would almost never classify this as vandalism (as it is an obvious test), until it is repeated enough and then I may consider it vandalism.

   Y

5. A user removes sourced information from an article, with the summary 'this is wrong'. First time, and after that? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions?

   Revert, and give {{subst:uw-delete1}}, {{subst:uw-delete2}}... and so on. As for the contribution history, if there is a history of disruptive contributions, I would treat it more as vandalism and deal with it accordingly, but if there is a positive history, I would treat it more as "trying to make the article more neutral", and I would more politely point it out. I would more likelily (is that a word) classify it as vandalism, but I would firstly classify it as a misunderstanding of the meaning of the verifiability policy (see WP:NOTTRUTH).

   Y

Part 2

Which templates warning would give an editor in the following scenarios. If you don't believe a template warning is appropriate outline the steps (for example what you would say) you would take instead.

1. A user blanks Cheesecake.

   {{subst:uw-blank1}}

   Y

2. A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.

   {{subst:uw-attempt1}}

   Y

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

   {{subst:uw-bes1}}

   Y

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

   In this case, I'd probably just use {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}.

   Y

5. A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.

   {{subst:uw-delete1}}

   Y

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

   {{subst:uw-test1}}

   Y

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

   {{subst:uw-npov1}}

   Y

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

   If the allegation is entirely false, I would use {{subst:uw-defamatory1}}.

   Y

9. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.

   {{subst:uw-delete4im}}

   Y

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

    I would report it to AIV.

    Y

11. A user blanks your userpage and replaced it with 'I hate this user' (you have had a number of problems with this user in the past).

    I'd probably report this either to AIV or AN/I. Also I think that that classifies as harassment at that point.

    Y

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

    {{subst:Uw-image1}} or {{subst:Uw-test1}}

    Y

Part 3

What CSD tag you would put on the following articles? (The content below represents the entire content of the article).

1. Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!

   G11 (advertising)

   Y

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

   A7 (no indication of importance)

   Y

3. Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !

   A1 (no context)

   Y

4. A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.

   Either A11 (obviously made up) or G3 (blatant hoax)

   Y

5. wiki is annoying and useless dont use it

   G3 (vandalism)

   Y

Part 4

Are the following new (logged in) usernames violations of the username policy? Describe why or why not and what you would do about it (if they are a breach).

1. TheMainStreetBand

   Violation: This username implies that it is owned by multiple people

   Y, if they edit constructively, then maybe leave a TP message

2. SUBSCRIBETOKURZGESAGT

   Violation: This is promotional (although Kurzgesagt is a pretty cool YouTuber)

   Y, yes Kurzgesagt is pretty cool

3. Brian's Bot

   Possibly a violation: You shouldn't use "bot" in non-bot usernames, unless this is a bot, in which case, no violation.

   Y

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

   Possibly a violation: May fall under "confusing usernames", and also see {{subst:Uw-ublock-nonsense}}.

   Y

5. WikiAdmin

   Violation: Is a cookie-cutter misleading username.

   Y

6. 12:12, 23 June 2012

   Probably a violation: It probably falls under "confusing usernames". Just imagine 12:12, 23 June 2012 22:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

   Y ow my eyes

7. PMiller

   Probably not a violation. It may be a violation if PMiller is meant to impersonate someone, such as the person with that Twitch username.

   Y

8. realDonaldTrump

   Obviously a violation: Impersonation!

   Y "we have so many fake people on Wikipedia, a tremendous amount"

Part 5

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

1. Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?

   Not necessarily; the edit warring policy states that reverting vandalism is not edit warring. Reverting obvious vandalism is especially not edit warring, and is an exemption to the three-revert rule.

   Y, this is one of those gray areas; if it's not blatant vandalism, you should attempt to resolve on the TP.

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

   Administrator intervention against vandalism. Ensure that the user has been sufficiently warned recently, and then use the {{vandal}} template to report the user. Note that this should only be used for obvious vandalism or spam.

   Y

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

   Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Make sure to notify the user with {{subst:ANI-notice}}, and to be specific in your report.

   Y

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

   Usernames for administrator attention; only for blatant violations. Firstly ensure, especially with promotional usernames, that there is a connection between the username and edits.

   Y

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

   Preferably also at AN/I because PAIN is gone. In cases of more severe personal attacks such as legal threats, libel, and threats of harm, instead report it in the revdel IRC channel I mentioned in the revdel section.

   Y

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

   The administrators' noticeboard for edit warring. Like with AN/I make sure to notify the user. Also make sure to provide diffs of the user's reverts, appropriate warnings, and an effort to resolve the dispute on the affected article's talk page.

   Y

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

   Violations that may be controversial and/or are not obvious should generally be reported to the biographies of living persons noticeboard, generally also using the uw-biog sequence of user warning templates. Obvious violations should just be reverted. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 22:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

   Y

Completion

@JJPMaster: Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy, on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction and graduation from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with a score of 99%. Well done! Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 22:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

As a graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox (make sure you replace your enrollee userbox) as well as the graduation message posted on your talk page (this can be treated the same as a barnstar).
{{User CVUA|graduate}}:

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.