User:Girth Summit/CVUA/Rocky 734

Hello Rocky 734, 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The start

Twinkle

Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.

Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.

@Girth Summit:, I did it. Rocky 734 (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Good, thanks - the first section is below... GirthSummit _(blether) 14:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Good faith edit is an edit which is done with good intention, while vandalism is done because of jeaulousness or with bad intention and are never helpful, also good faith edit may or may not be helpful but should be put with good source.

Y You are right that it is all about intent - if the intention of any edit is either to improve the article, or perhaps to test some piece of functionality, then the edit is not classed as vandalism - vandalism only applies to edits that are done intentionally to harm the project. That's not to say that good-faith edits shouldn't be reverted - we might revert them because they are unsourced, or because they are poorly written, or whatever, but we leave an edit summary explaining our actions, and we don't give the user a vandalism warning. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:30, 17 November 2019 (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. (The 'Recent changes' feed is a good way to find vandalism. Use the filters to show you 'Likely bad faith' edits.) Place diffs below

Below is a normal sentence i will vandelise it 2 time with good and bad edit with best possible way.

• Dada Company says his sampoo is one of the top product in India.
• Miami was asked to sit, but she refused.
• pele usually like to play football from his childhood.

@Girth Summit: Task completed i think i did it in excess. Rocky 734 (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

​I'm afraid I don't really understand this answer. I'm not asking for hypothetical examples of vandalism - I'm asking you to use the Recent Changes feed to find three examples of vandalism, and three examples of good faith edits which need reverting for different reasons, and to present the diffs below. Let me know if this is unclear. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

These are some bad faith edit:-

• It is vandalism, because edited nonsense in first paragraph

  This is rather unusual - draft articles don't often get vandalised, since they don't show up in searches for the subject's name. These IP editors would have to already know that the draft exists. I see that you've edited this article extensively - do you know anything about its history? As for the diff, I don't know if I can say for sure that the specific edit you've highlighted is vandalism, but certainly it looks like there has been some vandalism of the page in the IP's recent contributions there.

• Someone had earlier edited Nonsense in Occupation section of infobox is a vandal

  I agree that this is vandalism - however, we need to be careful about our language here. Adding 'nonsense' is not necessarily vandalism - it could be a test edit. This was not nonsense however - these were meaningful disparaging comments, which therefore convince me that the edit was vandalism.

• It is a clear Vandal

  Probably, yes - changing the name in the lead is never an encouraging sign.

Good faith edit will be

• someone written information but no use is a good faith edit

  Agree that this is likely good faith; note that the editor who reverted it left an edit summary explaining why they were reverting it (it was unsourced, and the list had 'red links' in).

• Here date of birth written is not important hence good faith edit

  So what you've shown me there is an edit that you made, and you've explained why you made it; what I'm looking for here is problematic good faith edits, rather than problematic content.

• Too much detail is a good faith edit

  I agree that this edit contained excessive detail; note again the editor's edit summary in reverting the content.

@Girth Summit:, sir have i done it correctly. I first understood that i will do vandal and revert it back in this page, later i understood that to lookup for recent change and filter out result to good and bad. Sorry for delaying. Rocky 734 (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

​ OK, so I agree with most of your assessments here. A quick point before we move on - I notice that all of your diffs presented above were 'mobile diffs'. Are you editing primarily on mobile? Is that your intention going forward? Personally, I find recent changes patrolling from a mobile device quite tricky - I'd advise you to use a desktop or laptop if at all possible.

Another thing I noticed was that you are mostly presenting diffs about Indian subjects - that makes sense, if that is your area of interest for editing. However, for the purposes of this course, I'd like to focus on patrolling all articles, via the 'recent changes' feed, as described above. You should see changes coming in to articles across a very broad range of topics. Could you please provide another three diffs that are vandalism, and three that you would describe as 'good faith, but needing reverting'? Please try using 'recent changes', and try to identify diffs yourself rather than doing it after someone else has reverted them - I need you to demonstrate that you can do this independently, before I set you off on the next part of the course where I will ask you to start reverting editors and warning them on their user talk pages. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: When at first i started editing article i was editing articles in Computer. But it was a desktop in my home .. i don't have enough money to buy a laptop... But still i try to do some work in Smartphone... I am planning to purchase Laptop in next few years till then i will continue with my mobile in desktop mode.@Girth Summit:...

vandalism ..
1- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TransPennine_Express&type=revision&diff=927678234&oldid=927677789&diffmode=source

N I can't see this as vandalism. There is an edit summary ('new stock delivered') - that's brief, but it suggests a reason why the IP removed this content, which was about a 'future fleet' - presumably, they mean that the trains have now been delivered, and are no longer in the future. If you look at the article history, you will see that another editor has removed the material again, explaining that the trains are now included in the 'current fleet' section.

2- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ophiuchus_(astrology)&type=revision&diff=927680041&oldid=927679891&diffmode=source

Y Yes, this is clearly vandalism.

3- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Come_Out_and_Play_(Billie_Eilish_song)&type=revision&diff=927680372&oldid=927680211&diffmode=source

Y Yes, agree.

Good faith

1- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_the_Bucket&oldid=927675962

Y Yes - this spelling change broke the link to the image of the map. This may have been intentional vandalism, but we can't be sure, so AGF.

2- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Britain&oldid=927674921

Y So, I agree with your revert, since the change was slightly ungrammatical; I also agree with you that this was a good faith edit. You need to be careful how you express yourself in edit summaries though - you said that 'Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom', which is factually wrong (The Republic of Ireland has been an independent country, which makes up most of 'the island of Ireland'); it's also likely to be offensive to some people, a bit like someone saying that India is still a part of the British Empire!

3- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sushi&type=revision&diff=927679062&oldid=927678843&diffmode=source

Y Yes, totally unsourced and silly content, revert was necessary. No reason to assume vandalism though.

4- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_the_Unknown&type=revision&diff=927681138&oldid=927681052&diffmode=source

Y Definitely not vandalism, and I agree that this wasn't really an improvement overall. I'd have left an edit summary though, explaining why I was reverting.

5- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toyota_Mirai&type=revision&diff=927682046&oldid=927681128&diffmode=source

Y Agree, this was unsourced.

OK Rocky 734 - see my feedback above. Mostly right, but a few things you might want to think about. I quite understand about the laptop - using a mobile in 'desktop' mode is a good alternative, that's how I usually edit if I'm on mobile. 'Mobile' mode is good for reading articles, but I find it really hard to edit using it!

Just a note about pings - the notification only gets sent if you sign your comment in the same edit. If you forget to sign, you need to add another ping and sign it.

Your next section is below - cheers! GirthSummit _(blether) 15:27, 30 November 2019 (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?

We warn users because we will make them realise that they are making mistake and giving burden to the editors. By informing them positively they can understand and they may not repeat such mistake which may result in parmanent block..

Y Yes, this is correct as far as it goes. Warnings serve a couple of other useful functions. First, they are helpful for other patrollers. If a user has a history of warnings on their talk page, it helps other patrollers judge what level of warning they should give the user. Also, it helps administrators, if the account or IP is reported to WP:AIV - if they have received lots of warnings, and continue to vandalise, it's an easy decision for an admin to block them; if they have never been warned, it's harder for the admin to justify the block.

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

We use 4im warning because, when a user is already given a warning below level 4 or is continuously dowing bad faith edits, also if they don't respond the message then they are given 4im warning and are reported to Administrator.

N So, there are two situations when a 4im warning is appropriate:

• If a user makes an edit which is egregiously offensive or against policy. Examples would be the insertion of blatantly racist abuse into a BLP, or inserting private information (e.g. their home address, phone number or e-mail address) about an identifiable person into an article, or making unsourced accusations of criminal behaviour in a BLP, that sort of thing.
• Alternatively, if you come across an account which has been making lots of vandalistic edits in quick succession, but nobody has warned them yet, a 4im can be appropriate.
• You don't need to report the user to admins when you make the 4im warning. If it is the first kind of situation, you'd normally request WP:REVDEL of the edit after reverting and warning (we'll cover that later in the course) - the admin who looks at that request will likely make a judgement about whether or not to block. If it's the second type of situation (multiple routine vandalistic edits), wait until they do it again before reporting.

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!)

subst is added inside a normal template, in order to make no further changes to the template. If we don't add subst then, whenever changes are made in the template it will regularly change. Which we don't want to be changed repetedly because change in warning may confuse the editor if he didn't made any wrong.

Y Yes. Twinkle, Huggle etc. automatically substitute a template when they add it, so you don't normally need to worry about this, but if you ever add one manually you need to remember to do this.

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

It should be reported to Administrator intervention against vandalism.

Y Yes - note that doing this with Twinkle is much easier than doing it manually! (Huggle also has the facility to do this, personally I prefer the Twinkle interface but either one will work).

@Girth Summit:, Rocky 734 (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:, completed Rocky 734 (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rocky 734: Sorry for the slow response - I'm afraid this is a very busy time of year for me, I've hardly had chance to log in for the last week or so. See feedback above, and next section below. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff	Trainer's Comment
1	Diff 1	Level 1 for not giving sources for information added for biographies.	This certainly wasn't vandalism. I'm in two minds about this - the content they added to the 'Early life' section, while not perfect, was probably an improvement on the prose - it had WP:EDITORIALIZING issues, but it was grammatically better; however, the content they added about the name of her child was unsourced and irrelevant. Personally, I would probably have just tidied this up a bit rather than doing a straight revert, and given the user a 'Welcome' template rather than a warning, since it looked like they were trying to improve the article.
2	Diff 2	Level 1 unexplained removal of content	Y Yes, that assertion was supported by the source, and no reason was given for the removal - I agree with your revert and warning.
3	Diff 3	Level 2 warning, this user was already warned	Y Yes, there was no reason given for the removal, your revert and warning were appropriate.
4	Diff 4	Level 3 for making disruptive editing	Y A vandalism warning would have been more appropriate here - the comments were clearly not attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Probably just a level 1, or at most 2, however - they weren't egregiously offensive, and the IP has only ever made two edits.
5	Diff 5	level 1 for making disrupting edit, i think he/she was just testing	Y I'm not very well-placed to judge this one, since I know nothing at all about the subject matter - however, if you suspect that they were just testing, you should give a 'test edit' warning, not a disruptive editing warning. Disruptive editing is usually given to edit warriors, POV-pushers, that sort of thing - not for testing.
6	Diff 6	level 1, test editing	N OK, so this one could have been handled better. You can't assume that a lack of an edit summary means an edit is problematic - you need to take time to review it more carefully. This was unambiguously an improvement to the article - the IP editor did indeed put the link into a more appropriate section, so your revert and warning were not warranted. I see that the user explained what they did on their talk page, but your response there wasn't ideal. Instead of advising them to create an account and to use edit summaries, you should have said something along the lines of "Oh, I'm very sorry, I see what you were doing now - you're quite right, that was an improvement, I'll reinstate your edit, sorry for the inconvenience." We all make mistakes, but when you do, it's important to apologise, and to fix what you've done - don't blame the IP for not knowing about edit summaries. I've just undone your revert, but next time this happens, please do that yourself. (As an aside, and this is probably just something to do with local varieties of English, but you should avoid calling people 'dear' - certainly to a UK reader, that would be seen as offensively patronising.)
7	Diff 7	Leve 1, test editing	Y Probably a 'blanking' warning would have been more appropriate here, but the revert was certainly warranted.
8	Diff 8	Level 1, for disruptive editing	Question: I'm not clear why you reverted this - the editor left a rationale in the edit summary. Did you read the sources and evaluate their argument, or did you simply see a new IP address removing content and revert it? Please expand on your thinking on this one below (not in the table, please do it underneath).
9	Diff 9	4im, continious disruptive editing, AIV report	Y This was appropriate - the only thing I'd note is that your warning was a 4im, it should have been a regular level 4 (not much difference, but it the wording makes more sense, using phrases like 'final warning' rather than 'only warning').
10	Diff 10	level 2 for adding controversial information without any proper source	Y Yep - I see they've been blocked now for continuing to make unsourced claims like this.

• @Girth Summit:, Task completed. Rocky 734 (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Rocky 734 Sorry for the slow response, Christmas got in the way there a bit. I've provided you with some feedback above - please review this carefully, and then respond to the question I asked you about revert number 8 below. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy holiday and Merry Christmas,@Girth Summit: I'm very happy to get an instructor like you who supports me very much. I managed to get temporary desktop so edited using desktop here. I am very sorry to say that in no 8, i was in very hurry after warning some users i was very much confident that majority of anonymous users do vandal, and that too the user did a deletion task which included the reference part. I thought in a hurry that it is clear vandal and missed to see the summary... i am very sorry. I will inform that user too also about it.. I have seen it the summary says Linking two unrelated sources as one, user editorializing. Constortium not a reputable source except for itself. Undue weight overall. user wants to say that he read the article deeply and he got it right that the two souces are mixed to create an original idea am i right??... Actually i wouldn't have edited that article due to little knowledge over that subject, but my small mistake ignored his summary... I will try to improve my way of talking to user and give right kind of message to them. I will try not to repeat my mistake in 1,4,5 and 6. Rocky 734 (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind wishes Rocky - much appreciated! I also appreciate your honesty in this response - being willing to accept mistakes is really important in any kind of learning process, both for you and for me - so, let's try to examine this and learn as much as we can from it. I think that you made two fundamental errors in how you approached this. First, you assumed that an edit from an IP address was likely to be vandalism; second, you were in a hurry. I'll talk about each of these separately, if I may...

• IP editing is an issue that divides experienced editors - a lot of people think that all editors should be required to log in with a registered account before they can edit any article. It is undoubtedly true that we get a lot of vandalism from IPs, but it is also a fact that we also get a lot of very constructive contributions from them. Whether we like it or not, editing from an IP is permitted - and a lot of very intelligent, experienced people edit without having an account. I've had some really positive conversations with some of them, and they all have their own reasons for not wanting to register an account. Remember too that a lot of IPs are dynamic, so an IP that appears to have no prior contributions may possibly belong to a very experienced editor. It is therefore always important to evaluate the edit, not the editor.
• It is often tempting to rush to make a decision, to avoid being 'beaten to the revert', but it is never a good idea. I have seen experienced patrollers get blocked for making bad decisions - quality, not quantity, really is what counts. Please, always take time to be certain before hitting 'revert' - even if you see other people being more slapdash about it, don't be tempted to follow their lead. Nobody can ever be 100% accurate, but I would much prefer you to make 100 reverts with a 99% accuracy rate, than 500 reverts with a 90% accuracy rate, if you see what I mean.

In the particular case above, the IP editor's edit summary was very descriptive - they are saying that the content is SYNTH, and that at least one of the sources isn't reliable. If you see an edit like that, you really can't justify reverting unless you have read the content, and the sources, and satisfied yourself that the edit was problematic - even then, it would be better to start a talk page conversation to discuss the edit, rather that reverting. If you aren't sure, or you don't want to get into a talk page discussion, then don't revert. The article will likely be watchlisted by one or more subject-matter experts - let them evaluate and decide whether it's OK. Our job as patrollers is to address obvious vandalism, unexplained blanking, unsourced additions, and the like - as soon as it gets tricky, we leave it for someone else to deal with.

I hope this all makes sense - let me know if you have any questions or comments on what I've written, otherwise I think we can move on to the next section. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 01:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:*You are correct, i hurriedly went on editing thinking that every work is made for me only, from now only i will take enough time to investigate and then only i will take my action. No doubt we can proceed. Its motivating me to proceed further... Rocky 734 (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

​I think that's a very reflective comment - sometimes it does feel like you are the only one looking at something, and you have to make the decision. There are occasionally things that need to be removed quickly - we'll cover that sort of situation later in the course - but 99% of the time, there's no urgency for you to make a decision, and so if you're unsure about something, always try to remember that there are thousands of other people working on the project, you can ask for another opinion or just leave it for someone else to deal with.

I think we can move on from reverting and warnings, so I've put the next section below... GirthSummit _(blether) 13:31, 28 December 2019 (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 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 page is semi protected if a page undergoes persistent vandalism with lage numbers of edits by different users.

Y Yes - if there is a high-volume of vandalism coming from numerous different users / IP addresses (so that blocking them is not effective at stopping the disruption), then semi-protection is applied. This often happens when a subject is in the news for a particular reason, and lots of people are looking at the page to find out more.

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

A page which is having low rate edit changes, but persistent vandalism occurs for certain period of time by different users. In that case pending changes protection should be used.

Y Yes - if the amount of vandalism is low, but it is going on for a long time, then pending changes can be more appropriate. This allows for constructive work by IPs/new accounts, but it means that experienced editors have to check them, so it costs a bit more volunteer time to maintain than semi protection.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

A page should be fully protected if a page undergoes persistent vandalism and very lage number of edits, and should be used after proper user discussions are made in the respective article talk page. *Doubt: I have not properly understood why fully protection are used by administrator and why only administrator are allowed to edit.

So, this is usually less about vandalism, and more about edit warring. Semi-protection stops most vandalism, since real vandalism usually comes from new accounts or IPs; if established accounts, who can edit through semi-protection, are edit warring about what should be on the page, then full protection is applied to stop the disruption. This forces editors to use the talk page and agree on what the content should say, and stops the disruption. It's also applied to certain widely used templates, not so much to stop vandalism, but because it can have serious effects if someone makes a good-faith but erroneous edit to them.

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

If a vandal page is created repeatedly with previously being deleted many times. Then their is a need to prevent it from further creation of bad article on that same name (also case sensitive), it should be protected by creation protection. It is often called salted.

Y Not just for vandalism, this is also common for self-promotion. If someone keeps writing an article about a subject that has been discussed before and we decided that it wasn't notable, the title can be salted so that a page can't be created at that title again.

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

It is used rarely, in most severe case of vandalism where enemy users make disruptive edits in some other user space. Then he can request for semi protection.

Y Yes, this is rarely used, but if a talk page is coming in for repeated vandalism from multiple sources, a short period of semi-protection can be applied.

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).

• approved

• Rejected but warned the user

@Girth Summit:, Task accomplished. Rocky 734 (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Rocky 734 The old report is good; with the new report, there were some different IPs editing the page a couple of weeks ago, but all the very recent changes were from one IP. Let me know if you report another one, generally it would only be accepted if there are multiple IPs/accounts editing in recent days. Next section below... GirthSummit _(blether) 15:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

@Girth Summit:, exams are pending but i counter some vandalism by making small edits,i will be active now onwards....

Ans:- A page should be speedy deleted if and only if it qualifies certain criteria, their are many conditions upon which if it qualifies then it may go for speedy deletion without any discussion. Rocky 734 (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Rocky 734 Apologies - I should have responded to this sooner. You're right - if a page clearly meets one of the criteria, it can be tagged, and if an admin agrees with your assessment it will be deleted without further discussion. Take a look at the following examples... GirthSummit _(blether) 19:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It's ok sir. Rocky 734 (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

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.

It is complete attack page under WP:G11, {{Db-g10}}, {{Db-attack}}, {{Db-attackorg}}, {{Db-personal attack}} and also applies WP:DISRUPTNAME.

Y You've linked to G11, but then showed the correct G10 template - this is an attack page, and would be very speedily deleted. If you reported the use to either AIV for vandalism, or to UAA for the username violation, noting the page, I expect their account would be blocked.

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.

Its content breaches WP:G10, reads like advertisement.. i will use either of these {{Db-g11}}, {{Db-promo}}, {{Db-spam}}and also check the user, if applicable i will put{{Db-spamuser}}.

Y Again - you've linked to G10 here, but given the correct template for G11 - this is a promotional page.

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.

WP:A7, no indication of importance.

Y A7 can be a tricky area, but there's no real claim of significance here. Read WP:SIGNIF carefully if in doubt, and remember that a claim doesn't have to be referenced for A7, but it does need to be credible. If in doubt, you can always use a PROD or send to AfD.

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.)

A1 and A7 may be applied.

N A1 doesn't apply here - the article says that it's a roadie, and gives his name - that's enough to find our article on The Nice, and there are a few online sources out there that mention him. A7 doesn't apply because being a Hall of Fame roadie would amount to a credible claim of importance or significance. In this case, even though the article is obviously unencyclopedic, there are actually no CSD criteria that apply. You have a few options though - you could send it to AfD as non-notable, or you could replace the content with a WP:REDIRECT to the article on The Nice, which would help users searching for this person on Wikipedia.

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?

G-12, copyright infringement. No because wikipedia publishes content with creative commons. So their ia no question of putting such tags.

Y Correct - it doesn't matter whether or not the website makes a copyright statement - we would assume that it is copyright, unless it has a clear statement that they release the content under a CC license (and even then, it needs to be attributed).

Scenario 6

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

A2. Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project, i would have placed it in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English

Y So, that criterion only applies if we have the same text at another language's Wikipedia - if you could find such an article, then yes, that would apply, but the question didn't specify whether this was the case or not. In all the NPP and CVUA work I've done, I've never come across a valid A2 - but I have come across lots of pages that aren't in English. Here's what I do - run the text through Google translate to confirm the language if it's not obvious, and to get a sense of what it's about. If it's advertising, mark it as G11. If it's vandalism, or an attack page, it's a G3 or G10 as appropriate. If it looks like a valid attempt to write an article, and you can't find it at another wiki, then flag it for translation.

Scenario 7

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.

Wait for some time if no content will be added then i would have put A3. No content.

Y I guess that makes sense, but the correct choice in this situation is G7 - user requested deletion. You'll see that a page blanked by its sole author may be interpreted as a request for deletion. If it's been ten minutes since the blanking, then a G7 tag would be uncontroversial.

Scenario 8

A new user creates a user page with nothing but the following content:

Jlakjrelekajroi3j192809jowejfldjoifu328ur3pieisgreat

How would this scenario be different if the page was created in a different namespace?

I will do nothing, it his userpage, if he does this in Main article then i would have put g1 complete nonsense.

Y Yep. On a userpage, there's no problem with this - there are certain things you're not permitted on a userpage (WP:UP for more on this), but nonsense isn't one of them, that's permitted. In an article, then yes, G1 nonsense would apply.

@Girth Summit:, Completed. Rocky 734 (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rocky 734: - good work, please see my feedback above. Next section is below... GirthSummit _(blether) 18:22, 21 January 2020 (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?

I'll contact administrator form the list who are willing to handle RevDel Category:Wikipedia administrators, i'll e-mail them at Special:EmailUser by writing their email for known or handalable cause (slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value), i'll not use talk page as it will increase visibility, if the revision is having anyone's pesonal information to be removed then i will opt for oversight team at oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org for removal of personal identifying information after i revert the information in an Article depending upon the situation. IRC Channel is also a better option for live chart.

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

I will go through this link Emailing Oversight. I will provide respective revision and then tell the reason to be deleted.

@Girth Summit:Task completed. Rocky 734 (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Y Yes, this is correct. I have found that the IRC channel is the best way to get something revdelled quickly, there's usually somebody around who is willing to take a look. Next section below... GirthSummit _(blether) 13:22, 25 January 2020 (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

It is okay.

Y Yes - it might be intended to imply that the person is Bill Gates, but on its own it would not be actionable, it might just be someone's real name. (If they were editing Microsoft in a way that suggested that they were Bill Gates, it would be a different matter - in that case, you should report this and they would be blocked pending OTRS confirmation that they really were Bill Gates). GirthSummit _(blether) 13:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

LMedicalCentre

It seems like advertising the Centre. It should not be allowed. I will contact it to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. violation of WP:PROMONAME.

Y Yes - this implies shared use, and is promotional - report once they start editing (note though that we don't act on accounts that haven't edited - wait until they edit before reporting. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

G1rth Summ1t

It is ok.

N No - this is an attempt to impersonate another Wikipedian. This should be reported immediately (even if they haven't edited) as it's probably been set up to troll someone. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

JoeAtBurgerKing

It is ok, as the person is not representing a group or organization. Not a violation of WP:ISU.

Y Yes - this is allowed because it identifies an individual, so isn't a username issue. (However - the person clearly has a COI, and should be made aware or WP:COI and WP:PAID as soon as they start editing. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

JoeTheSysop

It's not ok, user is representing his role for with name. violation of WP:ISU.

Y Yes - a username that implies one is an admin/sysop is not permitted. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Rocky 743

It is ok this user is just having numbers after his name.

N - No, they're trying to impersonate you! This would be blocked. (This happens quite commonly - I have had people create accounts to impersonate me, and have reported a number of similar cases with various other admins. It's always trolling).

D0naldTrump

It is not ok, as the username seems like representing the name in a funny way. It is also misleading as a famous celebrity, and also dowing blp violations. violation of WP:MISLEADNAME and WP:IMPERSONATE. It would be appropriate to talk to the user or keep an eye for his actions if all ok then.

It is also ok to be allowed this name. If this is his real name then he should announce in his userpage that he is not a real Donald trump.

Y Yeah, you could approach them to talk about it - if it really was their actual name, and they made it clear on their userpage that they weren't the famous Donald Trump, that would probably be allowable, but it's more likely to be trolling so a report to UAA wouldn't be out of line.

FuckAllYouAssholes

Clear violation of WP: DISRUPTNAME.

Y Yep - report, it would be blocked.

😜

Violation of WP:NOEMOJI.

Y You're right, but note that NOEMOJI violations should not be reported to UAA - you could start a discussion with them and ask them to change it, but ones like this wouldn't be blocked immediately - if they refused to change, a discussion is required at RFCN to force them to do it.

@Girth Summit:, Task Completed. Rocky 734 (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Good work on these Rocky 734 - feedback above. I'll check where we're up to and post the next section shortly, but you'll be glad to hear that we've done most of the course now. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Rocky 734 - the next section is below. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:34, 1 February 2020 (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?

I will email to emergency@wikimedia.org for any threat and other harmful comments. IRC channel also can be a better option. I will mention the article name with a particular revision with some details about the problem.

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)?

I will not judge wheather the threat is true or false, because threats are threats it can be harmful and i will forward it to emergency@wikimedia.org without any second thought, if it will be of my local authority then i will contact my nearest Police station(severe case). Before sending this i will revert change and contact to oversight team for suppression. I will also try to interact with the user if he is a new user.

@Girth Summit:, Task completed. Rocky 734 (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Y Contacting the Emergencies team by e-mail is the correct response. I'd be cautious about interacting with someone making threats, even if you suspect they are joking - the emergencies team receive training on the best way to handle that sort of thing, it's usually best to leave it to them. Next section below... GirthSummit _(blether) 13:05, 2 February 2020 (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?

As recognising trolls and vandals will drag more attention to such unimportant task did by a vandalizer and in turn lead to more such act. As it encourages more such act.

How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you? (Note - this is not a trick question, but it's not a straightforward one. Have a think about it, make your suggestions, and then we'll have a discussion. There isn't necessarily a clear right answer, but I'd be interested to know the factors you'd consider.)

A good faith edit will try to find the reason of being reverted and will try to discuss about the Article topic, he will try to investigate why his article had been reverted. He may say something in frustration but, try to stick to topic discussion. But a bad faith editor or troller will do personal attacks or will do nonsense talk in fraustration have been reverted for a edit, he will not discuss about article. He will try to say, who are you to revert my edit. Many times good faith user and bad(both) don't understand Wikipedia policies. They don't understand that Articles are written with boundaries of policies, by sticking to policies we can create a good collaborative Excellent Article. @Girth Summit:, task completed Rocky 734 (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

These are good answers Rocky 734. It's good that you recognise that a good faith user might be frustrated, or even rude - the important point is whether they are discussing the content of the article, and if you get the impression that they genuinely think their edit was an improvement. You don't have to put up with personal attacks from them - it's usually good to let them blow off a little steam while remaining polite, but if they persist in attacking you then you can always go to ANI. Most good faith users calm down quite quickly though when you explain politely why you've done something - or, if you've made a mistake, when you apologise and self-revert. Don't engage with trolls through, they're just looking for attention - if you suspect someone is trolling you, revert their edits without responding and report to AIV or ANI. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, you've done all of the content of the course except for the bit about rollback. You already have the permission, so you don't need to do that section - if you like though I'll give you the questions? Otherwise, it's straight on to the final exam. Let me know what you'd prefer... GirthSummit _(blether) 17:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

sir,@Girth Summit:I think we can skip that part. I have completed most part of that section - WP:ROLLBACK.Rocky 734 (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

OK Rocky 734 - straight onto the exam then, see below. Complete it at your own rate, and ping me when you're done. Good luck! GirthSummit _(blether) 13:25, 8 February 2020 (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).

Q1. 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 will check the number of contribution he had done before, if he had done a significant number of contribution then i will warn him for disruptive editing. If he's not done any contribution them i will welcome him and ask him to test edit in Sandbox. I will warn him next time when he'll do the same.

Y

Q2. 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?

Continuous repeating of such task after being warned will be considered disruptive editing, he may be blocked after giving 4im warning.

Y

Q3. 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 will welcome him to Wikipedia for test edit and ask him to do experiment in sandbox. If he keep on doing same thing than i will give him a warning of Caution, if he repeatedly does than a last and final 4im warning.

Y

Q4. A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?

I will revert it and ask him to do test edit in sandbox by giving welcome message.

Y

Q5. 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?

I will welcome the user for good faith content removal. Then if the user repeats the same act then i will warn him for content removal.

Y This is the answer a lot of users would give, and it's usually what you end up doing, but tread carefully. The user has given an edit summary explaining their removal - if you reinstate it, you are responsible for the content. So, before reinstating, check the content and the source - is it reliable? This is especially important in a BLP - I've seen experienced patrollers before add BLP violations back into articles because they thought they were reverting vandalism. A new account might have a very good reason to remove content from a page - for example, if someone spots libel or defamation about themselves, they're allowed to remove it, regardless of COI concerns. So, be careful - check the source, check the content, and if you're satisfied that it belongs on the page then your answer is correct, but every now and again you will realise that the removal was valid - in those cases, welcome the user, and thank them for their edit.

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.

Q1. A user blanks Cheesecake.

I will give him {{subst:uw-blank1}} for the first time if he did his very first edit. I will give him {{subst:uw-blank2}} for a user having second time. If he continues to do so, or the user is having a habit of blanking content then i will substitute {{subst:uw-delete3}} and inform him to Administrative intervention against vandalism.

Y

Q2. A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.

I will give him {{subst:uw-defamatory1}} for the first time then if he repeats then {{subst:uw-defamatory1}}, it will apply for other experienced user too.

Y Not bad, but {{subst:uw-attempt1}} is probably better here.

Q3. A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.

I will give him {{subst:uw-attempt1}}.

Y Not bad again, but we have {{subst:uw-efsummary}} for edit summaries that trigger the filter.

Q4. A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.

I will give him {{subst:uw-disruptive1}}, if user repeats then i will report it to WP:AIV.

Y Regular vandalism would work for this too.

Q5. A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.

I will give him {{subst:uw-delete1}}.

Y

Q6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

The user may be doing test edit so,{{subst:uw-test1}}.

Y

Q7. A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.

Revert users edit and ask user to read Wikipedia:Assume good faith carefully.

Y Certainly revert; I'm not sure why AGF applies here. Personally, I'd give a vandalism warning here - this text clearly doesn't make sense within the article.

Q8. A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.

Email to Wikipedia:Oversight team and revert users edit.

Y You are being cautious here, which is a good thing, but I probably wouldn't e-mail oversight just for an assertion about arrest - lots of innocent people get arrested, it's not really accusing them of anything. I'd just revert, and give them a {{subst:uw-biog1}}. If it accused him of involvement of a specific crime, that's when oversight would probably be called for.

Q9. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.

I will revert his edit immediately{{subst:uw-vandalism4im}}. I will report it to WP:AIV.

Y

Q10. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.

I will report it to WP:AIV.

Y

Q11. 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 will revert edit and ignore the user.

Y Good - yes, revert and ignore. Be aware that you can report this to ANI - I would expect to see behaviour like that result in an immediate indefinite block for harassment.

Q12. A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.

He may be doing test edit so, {{subst:uw-test1}}.

Y (Also be aware of {{subst:uw-image1}} for image-related vandalism, but since this looks more like a test than vandalism, the test warning is correct.)

Part 3

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

Q1. Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!

Self promotion{{Db-promo}}.

Y

Q2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

{{Db-test}}.

Y Hmm - I guess G2 might apply here, but this is more of an A7 - no indication of significance or importance.

Q3. Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !

{{Db-test}}.

Y Again, G2 would probably work, but this is an A1 - there's not enough context to identify the subject (who is Joe?)

Q4. A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.

{{Db-nonsense}}.

N No - G1 is for unintelligible text. This is grammatically fine, so it can't be a G1 - it's either a G3 (hoax) or A11 (obviously invented by the author).

Q5. Fuck Wiki!

{{Db-nonsense}}.

N Again, not a G1 - this is G3, vandalism.

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).

Q1. TheMainStreetBand

The username should represent an indivisual but here the name indicates a group such as a band. So, it is a policy violation. But can be put to exceptions by grandfaher's law. I would talk to the user by placing {{subst:uw-username}}.

Y Yes, no harm in have a conversation with them. Note that the question was about new accounts, so grandfathering wouldn't apply, but this might not be too much of a problem if they aren't editing about a band of that name, so discussing it with them would be a good starting point.

Q2. Fartypants

The name appears to be disruptive WP:DISRUPTNAME. So it is a policy violation. But can be put to exceptions by grandfaher's law. I will report it at UAA.

Y I'm not sure this is offensive enough to be blockable - it's very silly, but there are no obscenities and it's not directed at anyone. I'd look at their contribs and expect to find vandalism. If they were a vandalism-only account you should report to AIV, but if they were doing good word you could perhaps mention that their username is a bit offensive and suggest they change it - but I can't see admins blocking this account purely based on the account name.

Q3. Brian's Bot

Usernames which could be easily misunderstood to refer to a "bot" WP:MISLEADNAME, So it is a policy violation. I will report it at UAA.

Y

Q4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

Here the name is extremely long, so it is a policy violation. But can be put to exceptions by grandfaher's law. I will report it at UAA.

Y So, again, this name is excessively long, and very confusing - it would be difficult to have a conversation with this person. It might not have been done maliciously though - someone might not realise the importance their username, and just mashed the keyboard when they were asked to create one. You could report to UAA, but again I'd suggest looking at their contribs first. If they're vandalising, go to AIV; if they're doing good work, you could talk to them about it. Also consider WP:RFCN as an alternative to UAA for productive users.

Q5. WikiAdmin

Usernames that give the impression that the account has permissions which it does not have, may lead to confusion; WP:MISLEADNAME. So it is a policy violation. But can be put to exceptions by grandfaher's law. I will report it at UAA.

Y

Q6. 12:12, 23 June 2012

The user name is confusing so a violation, WP:UNCONF. But can be put to exceptions by grandfaher's law. I will report it at UAA.

Y Yes - this looks like a deliberate attempt to confuse people, rather than the one above which could have been an accident.

Q7. PMiller

It is ok as it is representing an individual, but it should present in his user page that he is not the actual PMiller.

Y Yes - real names are allowed, there must be thousands of people around the world called Peter or Paul or Pamela Miller.

Q8. OfficialJustinBieber

It is ok if the individual is representing actual pop-star, if not he should surrender his username. But can be put to exceptions by grandfaher's law. I will report it to UAA.

Y Yes, report to UAA. This account would be blocked until the user presented evidence to the OTRS team that they really were the Canadian songster - nobody else is permitted to pretend to be a famous person on Wikipedia.

Part 5

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

Q1. Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?

I will keep a distance while in an edit war, i will apply for a page protection if applicable. I will focus on a particular thing, if i understand about the situation which the edit war is on then i will try to solve it or report it to respective Noticeboard.

Y Keeping a distance is a good idea. When reverting vandalism, it's very common to have vandals keep inserting their vandalism onto a page, which can be frustrating if AIV is backlogged. If it is clear, unambiguous vandalism, you can revert them as many times as you need to until they are blocked - but WP:3RRNO spells out the specific conditions when you're allowed to do this. If in doubt, don't go over 3RR, wait for others to get involved. I've seen really good patrollers get blocked because they get drawn into an edit war which wasn't about clear vandalism - don't let that happen to you!

Q2. Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?

It can be reported in Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, and WP:AIV.

Y

Q3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

It should be reported in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

N Not really - DRN is for disputes between good faith editors. ANI is where to report behavioural issues that aren't simple and obvious enough for AIV.

Q4. Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is having a dedicated user friendly page, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request.

N Blatant username violations go to WP:UAA

Q5. Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?

It should be reported in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard only after no conclusion is drawn in talk page discussion.

N You are very fond of DRN today! No, that's specifically for content disputes. Persona attacks are a conduct issue - that's what ANI is for.

Q6. Where and how should an edit war be reported?

In Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and going through this link create report.

Y You can use Twinkle to do this, it's much easier than filling in the form manually!

Q7. Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?

It should be reported in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard by giving {{BLP noticeboard|date=xxxxx|section= your "subject/headline" }} template in talk page or typing the name of the article in the blank empty box present at the top og Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard page and click on create report.

Y

@Girth Summit:, Task completed. I am very sorry for very late response due to some very high workload. Many Many apologies Rocky 734 (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Rocky 734 Hi - good to see you again, I was thinking about asking whether you wanted to finish this or not. No problem about the wait - real life happens to all of us from time to time! Well done - I've been through your answers above, and with a score of 77%, I am happy to inform you that you have passed the course - congratulations! I'll put a message on your talk page indicating this. Please look through the comments above, especially the ones where I've suggested an alternative to the answers you gave - feel free to ask any further questions if there's anything you're not clear on. It's been a pleasure working with you on this course - thank you for spending the time to learn how best to counter vandalism and keep Wikipedia clean! If you ever encounter any problems while countering vandalism, have any questions about what to do, or even if you just want another set of eyes on a situation, you're always welcome on my talk page. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:, Again many many thanks for helping me learn a new thing, which would be difficult to learn without your excellent guidance. I have learned something new which can help me in countering vandalism. I will share my little journey during course..If the task is interesting then no matter what time it takes you will complete it anyway..The most interesting task was warning users for policy task, as you don't know what kind of people you are dealing with and what reactions will they give it to you but to be bold if they violate policy they are reverted, which to be silly help me develop some communication skills. I was talking with real person not a robot. Haunting task was emailing oversighters as it was something i felt outside Wikipedia work. Final exam was medium task, one thing if we don't work frequently in Wikipedia then we might forget everything. That happened to me too, i nearly forgotten as the long list of policy guidelines are difficult to remember..and I'm very weak in remembering things, but i understand things their purpose. At later i started it from zero. Finally i thank you for your patience and excellent organized teaching i have enjoyed these 4 months with you exploring new thing, i think i would have scored better if i would have tried more harder. I will take care of all the mistakes that i did and learn from it. Again thank you for all your teachings i will remember it forever. I will ask you questions in doubt. Rocky 734 (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Completion

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 77%. Well done!

As a graduate you are entitled to display the following 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.