User:Polo/CVUA/Arctic Kangaroo

Arctic Kangaroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello, 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 when under my instruction, 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 atmy 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.

Q&A section

If I encounter an edit which is obviously one in bad faith, but it seems like a mix of blanking and vandalism (in which the vandal blanks a section of/ the whole page and then replaces it with a sentence containing nonsense), then what warning should I issue the vandal? (blanking/vandalism) Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 10:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The warning you should engage with the user is vandalism since the blanking he made was illegitimate plus he replaces it with nonsense characters, that is automatically vandalism as per Wikipedia:VANDAL#Blanking.2C_illegitimate. Mediran (t • c) 12:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mediran, I don't get what you mean by "that was just OK" (the edit which you say was actualy vandalism). Is it possible to explain? Thanks. :D Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 12:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Haha... what I mean there was I was just ~~complementing~~ complimenting you. To make you feel worry-less. Mediran (t • c) 12:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
So, how do we differenciate vandalism and test edits? Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 13:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you already know vandalism. Now those test edits are also and considered as vandalism because it is disruptive. Test edits occur in sandboxes and are not meant for mainspace articles. Mediran (t • c) 03:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
But surely there are good-faith editors who probably don't know about the sandbox's existence and make tests edits in the mainspace articles, right? So, how do we differentiate them? Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 13:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, what you have said is right, there are but not most of the good faith editors doesn't know sandboxes but sandboxes are in some instances introduced when a user was once warned if the user is an IP or an unregistered user. Mostly, sandboxes are introduced in the the introduction when once a user has logged in. I'm a bit confused with your question but as I understood, you want to differentiate test edits in sandboxes and mainspace articles (correct me if I'm wrong). There are nothing to be differentiated because there are supposed to be no test edits that must occur in mainspace articles as much as possible. But If this query is about your current task, you must just find 2 simple vandals because tests are also considered as vandalism but this is not if in sandboxes. Mediran (t • c) 10:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

PS Test edits are vandalism if those are in the mainspace but it is not if it is done in sandboxes. Here's an example of a test in sandbox, when this is in mainspace, this is vandalism. Mediran (t • c) 10:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
So, test edits in mainspace articles are just like what people are more likely to test in a sandbox, but true vandalism is basically nonsense in the articles, right? Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 10:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Wait, what? You're saying that vandalism is nonsense and test edits are those that should be watched. I know you already knew things regarding vandalism. Now, as I say, test edits just implies those edits that are unnecessary for an article, that's why it is disruptive and is considered as vandalism. Dis you get it? Test edits are vandalism but vandalism are not test edits. Mediran (t • c) 09:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
How do we differentiate offensive and disruptive usernames? I'm confused by the descriptions. Arctic Kangaroo 11:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, offensive and disruptive username concepts are mostly related to each other. According to WP:U, offensive usernames are those usernames that contain or imply personal attacks. Disruptive are those usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible, for example by containing profanities, that otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia and that seem intended to provoke emotional reaction ("trolling"). Well, since at the WP:U page, disruptive and offensive usernames are on the same section because they are mostly the same. Offensive username is like "IHateMediran", "FuckQ", etc. Disruptive includes usernames like "Trolololo" or have something to do with trolls. Note that "FuckQ" can also be categorized as disruptive. For me, they are just the same because when it is offensive, it is disruptive and vice versa. Hope this helps. Mediran (t • c) 12:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't get the difference between {{IPvandal}} and {{vandal}}. What are they anyway? Arctic Kangaroo 15:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
They are just the same functionally. However, they are different in use. {{IPvandal}} is used for anonymous or IP users while {{vandal}} is used for logged-in/registered users. Mediran (t • c) 11:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, do you think this (which I use) is appropriate?
Level 1 = AGF
Level 2 = No faith assumption
Level 3 = Assume bad faith, pls stop
Level 4 = ABF, stop or block
im = LTA
Arctic Kangaroo 11:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless, these is appropriate. Mediran (t • c) 09:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Scenario 3, may I know what do you mean by "revert the edit on the new article to Laptop"? Arctic Kangaroo 09:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, I see that the exact wordings are "Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option would you use?" It means that do you think the edit to the article Laptop should be reverted as per the scenario given. Nonetheless, I found your question funny because it mostly imply that revert the edit and turn it into laptop or something like that. But the question given in the task is not similar to "revert the edit on the new article to Laptop". Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Although I have answered the question, I'm just curious. For one of the questions in Scenario 3, what do you mean by "If so then which template and what parameters"? Based on my knowledge, there's only one such template and what parameters does it have? Arctic Kangaroo 09:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It means that if you're going to add a note on the user's talk page what would it be. "If so what template" means for an example {{uw-username}}. "What parameters" means by what specific WP policy does the user violates (e.g. by having a Promotional username violating WP:U or having COI). However, having parameters is not that necessary if the situation is so obvious. Mediran (t • c) 10:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
In Huggle, is there any way to "pass" an edit if we are unsure whether the edit is vandalism/addition of false info? Arctic Kangaroo 10:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Just don't revert it or so whatever. Mediran (t • c) 10:40, 22 February 2013 (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. It is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labelling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.

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

A: Good faith edits are edits made in good faith, which means that the editor made the edits with the intention of helping to improve Wikipedia. In this case, he believes that the info he provided is true, but it is actually false. Examples of good-faith edits include editing tests. Personal attacks are not considered vandalism, although they are, of course, illegal and not encouraged on Wikipedia. Vandalism are bad-faith edits, in which the vandal hopes to disrupt the smoothness of Wikipedia and harm it. This may include adding false links, blanking, and nonsense being added to the page. It may even include adding false info to a page when it is all too obvious that it is too false to be a good-faith edit.

Yes, that's right. Now, the similarities of good faith and vandalism is that they are both disruptive. But what are their differences? The difference between good faith edits and vandalism is that the editors who are acting in good faith are trying to improve WP without the intention of disrupting it but unfortunately, there edit have caused disruption; vandals are those extremely disruptive and have bad faith. Good faith are those edits that the contributors doesn't know that it was already distrupting WP while Vandalism are those edits that the contributor's only goal is to vandalized WP and obviously know that they will cause disruption. Mediran (t • c) 01:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Please find and revert three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. Please warn the editors with the correct template and give the diffs of your reverts below. If you need help with using diffs, just ask me.

Good faith

[[1]] Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 02:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

[[2]] Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 11:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

[[3]] Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 11:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

[[4]] Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 01:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

[[5]] Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 02:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

[[6]] Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 02:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow! You're doing great! I'm a little bit confused with this diff. I see that the user did removed contexts at the page, you must recognize it as vandalism because the user removed significant content of the page without any reason presented in edit summaries or per consensus. But that was just OK. Mediran (t • c) 12:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

As you know, we are using Twinke, which is very useful for warning users. 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:UWUL.

Please answer the following questions.

Why do we warn users?

A: To inform them that they have breached a policy of Wikipedia, so as to allow them to realise their mistake. This will let them know not to breach that policy the next time they edit Wikipedia. It also allows vandals to learn from mistakes and contribute positively to Wikipedia in future edits.

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

A:

1. Severe or gross cases of vandalism

2. Persistent/Repeated vandalism from a particular IP address/account

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

A: Report the user at WP: AIV

If a user has vandalised twice but has not received any warnings for it, what might you do?

A: Revert both vandalism edits and warn him just once for the 2 bad edits. Warn him further if he persists.

Ans to 4 qns above: Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 12:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I was impressed with your answers. Fantastic! Additional for 4im. 4im warnings are those only warnings. These warnings are those first and last warnings. This might be also applied to question #4 if the user's edits was extremely and expressly disrutive. Mediran (t • c) 12:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

{{subst:uw-vandalism3}} - Warns vandals who vandalise pages, assuming bad faith for the 1st time.

{{subst:uw-delete2}} - Tells user not to blank pages or sections without mentioning why

{{subst:uw-3rr}} - Warns users involved in an edit war.

Actually, I had to try a few times to get the above three warning templates right. (format, text etc.)I am just trying to be honest so that you can train me more in this manual warning if you feel that it is necessary. :)

Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 13:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Your choice of warnings are perfect. Those are the good warnings to issue especially when recent-changes patrolling. Mediran (t • c) 03:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Please include at least two test edits and at least two appropriate reports to AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below

#	Diff of edit	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff
1	diff	[[7]] (already reported by another user and put on hold, but vandalised again, thus my report)
2	diff	[[8]] and [[9]] (2nd diff for addition of info)
3	diff	[[10]] [[11]] (2nd diff for my suspicion of it being a sockpuppet)
4	[[12]]	comment
5	[[13]]	comment
6	diff	[[14]]
7	diff	comment
8	diff	comment
9	diff	comment
10	diff	comment
11	diff	comment
12	diff	comment
13	diff	comment
14	diff	comment
15	diff	comment

Could you please include the diff of your reversion of a certain vandal then if you have reported the vandal, please add its diff. Add your reversion next to the diff of your report. I saw only one correct report at AIV. Mediran (t • c) 09:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mediran, I am not sure about this, but my sincere apologies if my mistakes (as above) have disappointed you. But that's precisely why I chose to attend this course. Is it possible to point out my mistake? Thanks. Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 15:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, you didn't disappointed anyone. I saw only one user that you have reported at AIV successfully wherein he was blocked from editing. Most of the requests above were rejected and archived. Just report one vandal at AIV successfully then you will now move on to your next task. Thanks

, Mediran (t • c) 09:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Marker's comment I will not going to comment on every boxes there above but I will comment here. Anyways, at long last! You're finished! Good work on that report that you successfully reported one vandal which was blocked from editing WP. Your next task is coming up! ;) Mediran (t • c) 10:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have, in the past few days, reported quite a handful of vandals successfully, and I was ratther busy, studying and then editing WP after that. And, please monitor this page perhaps, on your watchlist, as new messages may come in anytime. :P Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 10:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Tools

Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#Tools includes a list of tools and resources for those who want to fight vandalism with a more systematic and efficient approach.

What you have been doing so far is named the old school approach. As well as manually going throughSpecial:RecentChanges, it includes undos, "last clean version" restores, and manually warning users.

There are a large number of tool which assist users in the fight against vandalism. They range from tools which help filter and detect vandalism to tools which will revert, warn and report users.

Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool

Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool monitors the RSS feed and flags edits with common vandalism terms. It's a very simple tool, but which is useful for not having to go check each and every diff on Recent Changes.

Twinkle

The first tool I want to mention is Twinkle, it's a very useful and I strongly suggest you enable it (in the Gadgets section of your preferences). It provides three types of rollback functions (vandalism, normal and AGF) as well as an easy previous version restore function (for when there are a number of different editors vandalising in a row). Other functions include a full library of speedy deletion functions, and user warnings. It also has a function to propose and nominate pages for deletion, to request page protection to report users to WP:AIV & WP:UAA (which we'll get to later).

Rollback

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

STiki

STiki consists of (1) a component that listens to the RecentChanges feed and scores edits on their possibility of being uncontructive; and (2) An application which scans through the most recent revisions on pages and scores the possibility of them being uncontructive.

Huggle

Huggle is a Windows program which parses (orders them on the likelihood of being unconstructive edits and on the editor's recent history) from users not on its whitelist. It allows you to revert vandalism, warn and reports users in one click.

Uh...well, before reading this, I have been using Twinkle, not the manual undo. :) Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 10:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's good... this is just an overview of useful tools that may be considered in countering vandalism here in Wikipedia. It's been days, why are you not taking your task below? You're doing great but I'm beginning to think that you're quite being uninterested in taking this course since then. Please let me know. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 11:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry too much, just that when I'm online, I am doing what editors are here to do on Wikipedia. You may also want to take a look at the newly hung notice on my talk page. I will try to respond soon. Cheers, Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 11:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha... I know that but I really worried for getting no response a while ago. Anyways, good luck on that examination coming these days. :) Mediran (t • c) 11:40, 16 January 2013 (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: To prevent increased vandalism on Wikipedia, as giving them recognition will only motivate them to further vandalise Wikipedia.

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

A: A good faith user will most likely ask in a polite, willing-to-discuss tone. A troll will probably insult the user, shout, or write in a rude manner. They may even try to threaten the user.

Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 00:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Great answers! Now, off to your next task! Mediran (t • c) 01:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion

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

Protection

Please read WP:PROTECT.

Under what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

A: A page which is rather frequently/infrequently edited (infrequently: based on experience) and is experiencing high levels of vandalism. Usually have few IP contributors.

Under what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

A: An article frequently/infrequently (frequent: based on experience) edited, perhaps have quite a number of IP contributors, but have a few rotten eggs among them. So that good-faith editors can still conribute.

Under what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

A: When a page is experiencing high levels of vandalism or edit warring from autoconfirmed users.

Above three qns: Arctic Kangaroo 15:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Y Great! Additional info is that PC Protection is applied is when new or IPs violates BLP. Also, Semi is applied if new or IPs kept on vandalizing the page disruptively and also from edit warring. You still have one more task to do to access your next task ;) Mediran (t • c) 09:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

[[15]]

Great reports. For the record, I never reported pages for full protection yet. And I'm impressed with you for finding pages with occurring edit war. Great! Mediran (t • c) 11:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have been observing that page occasionally over the past few weeks. The edit war has started for over a month. I have warned both "soldiers" and also reported them once already. But, for some reason, they don't learn and continue to "fight". So, last resort or else this thing will continue forever. Arctic Kangaroo 11:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Haha... good observation. And also, I like that "fun" regarded at your report at RPP. It made me laugh for some time. ;) Mediran (t • c) 11:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

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

A: Personal attacks, nonsense, attacks on living people, advertising, unconstructive editing.

Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons - they can be for any of the criteria) and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below.

A: Refer to my CSD log. Take your pick.

Arctic Kangaroo 11:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess I should not visit you log since I know that you did it right. ;) Mediran (t • c) 11:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"I should not visit your log since I know that you did it right." --> ??? Arctic Kangaroo 11:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh? I mean, "I should not visit your log since I know for myself that your speedy deletion nominations are right and successful." gets? Mediran (t • c) 11:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, not all the time I get the criteria right, also got one page not deleted. Logging off for now, gotta go dinner. ;) Arctic Kangaroo 12:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Usernames

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

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

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

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

DJohnson

A: Don't find anything wrong, could be a real name, eg. Daniel Johnson.

that's right! Mediran (t • c) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

LMedicalCentre

A: Promotional username, because of "medical centre".

that's right! Mediran (t • c) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Fuqudik

A: Offensive username, resembles "Fuck you dick".

that's right! Mediran (t • c) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

ColesStaff

A: Promotional username, "Coles" is the name of an Australian supermarket. (I would not have known that if I have not visited Australia. ;D )

haha.... that's right! Mediran (t • c) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

~~~~

A: Misleading username, looks like a signature.

that's right! Mediran (t • c) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

172.295.64.27

A: Misleading username, resembles an IP address.

that's right! Mediran (t • c) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Bieberisgay

A: Disruptive username, insults Justin Bieber.

that's right, could be offensive also. Mediran (t • c) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Above 7 questions: Arctic Kangaroo 15:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Mediran, I have swopted the descriptions of offensive and disruptive usernames, as per your answer at my qn in Q&A. Arctic Kangaroo 14:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Now, you have completed this area of your CVU course, you will now proceed to your next task. PS, you don't needed now to notify me if you're finished with your current task. I'm watching, it. If you did not receive your task timely, maybe I'm assessing it or I am offline. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Progress test

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

The following 2 scenarios each have 5 questions that are based on WP: VANDAL, WP:3RR, WP: REVERT, WP: BLOCK, WP:GAIV, WP: WARN, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, and WP:UN. Good Luck! Mediran (t • c) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Scenario 1

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

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

A: Vandalism. If there's no ref, the user is just trying to attack Bieber on his article, and cause unnecessary disruption on Wikipedia. Arctic Kangaroo 15:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Mediran (t • c) 11:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

A: WP:BLP, WP:VAND. Arctic Kangaroo 15:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Mediran (t • c) 11:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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

A: Level 3, addition of unref conroversial info of living persons. Arctic Kangaroo 15:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

but to avoid being bitey even if the user is disruptive, you should issue {{welcomevandal}} or {{uw-vandalism1}}. However, if the user has been warned recently before, higher warning is necessary. Mediran (t • c) 11:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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

A: No, I'm just doing my job to revert vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 15:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Mediran (t • c) 11:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or Template:Vandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)?

A: {{IPvandal}}. Arctic Kangaroo 11:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Mediran (t • c) 09:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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

A: Vandalism after final warning, violation of BLP policy. Arctic Kangaroo 15:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Mediran (t • c) 11:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

PS Still one more question has not been answered yet. Mediran (t • c) 11:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Scenario 1 complete Mediran (t • c) 09:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)