User:Technical 13/CVUA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! This programme is meant to be tailored to you, so do not hesitate to tell me if you want extra teaching on anything, or if something is not working for you. Make sure you have read through Wikipedia:Vandalism because this is an essential resource for this course.

How do I 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. 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.

Unit 1: Good faith or vandalism?

Helpful links

• WP:GOODFAITH
• WP:What is vandalism?

Before you start this activity, you have to recognise the difference between "Good Faith" and "Vandalism" edits. Good faith edits are made by people genuinely trying to contribute, while vandalism is when someone is purposely making disruptive edits. Vandalism edits are sometimes called "Bad Faith edits". Remember to read through the resources provided above!

In your own words, please explain how you would tell "Good Faith" and "Vandalism" edits apart.

A: Good faith edits are when the editor seems to be attempting to contribute positively to an article. Sometimes, as in the Sven Bender revert below, some research is required to confirm that it was a good faith edit attempt. By checking the sources of that article, I found that the first source has Sven's age listed at both 23 AND 24, which may have confused the editor who attempted to change the birth year so that the age would be 24. Reviewing the second reference clearly states that Sven's birth year is 1989. A vandal edit is someone (or a bot) that maliciously tries to altar an article to include some kind of obscenity, remove large amounts of information without justification, or add large amounts of information not pertaining to the article.

Y Very good answer :)

Please find and revert 2 examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and 2 examples of vandalism. Please give the diffs (differences of your reverts below. To do so, just copy the full link of the difference from your url box and paste them inside the square brackets. If you need more help with using diffs, just ask me.

• AGF reverts
  • Reverted good faith edits by 110.174.209.166 (talk): Unverifiable edits break sentence structure and don't make sense. (TW)
    • QTQ Y Right
  • Reverted good faith edits by 109.156.17.103 (talk): Editor didn't check all of the sources. (TW) Technical 13 (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Y correct
    • Sven Bender
• Vandal reverts Y yes
  • Reverted 2 edits by 173.52.109.158 (talk) to last revision by 68.97.31.61. (TW)
    • First Punic War Y Good
  • Reverted 1 edit by 38.111.41.162 (talk) to last revision by ClueBot NG. (TW)
    • Environmental issues in the Niger Delta Y okay
    • Also, after noticing the IP had a non-redlink talk page, I decided to check it out. The page consists of a few warnings for vandalism in Jan, a 1 month block in Jan, and a 1 month block in Feb. I decided to notify the most recent blocking admin that this IP was at it again. Technical 13 (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Other reverts
  • Undid revision 549154648 by ClueBot NG (talk · contribs) Reported as false positive.
    • Instrument approach Y Okay, good!
  • Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). (TW)
    • Lintex Y yep
• Notes
  • I'm finding lots of articles that are tag-able with Twinkle, but not revert-able... Taking a break for breakfast and yard-work.. Back later to try and find a couple more to revert. 14:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

    Hm.. I'm not sure what you mean. Could you give me an example? nerdfighter 17:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

    [1] & [2] For example. Technical 13 (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

    Does is still show the "restore" button over revisions? That just means that there are later revisions made to the article. The restore button can do the same thing as rollbacking. 18:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

    Yes. LOL I am fully aware that there are further revisions. My point was although the edits was good, the articles required tagging of multiple issues. However, now that I'm looking at them again some time later, I'm kind of concerned that my tagging of issues on the List of ecoregions in Indiana article was reverted two edits later with no attempt to fix any of the issues. Technical 13 (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Unit 2: How do I warn and report a vandal?

Helpful links

• WP:Vandalism
• WP:AGF
• WP:UWUL
• WP:WARN

It is time for you to enable Twinkle. Go to your preferences, and select Twinkle (under gadgets). 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. Remember to read the resources provided!

Why do we warn users?

A: We warn users because humans are human and we AGF. We want to give them the chance to correct their errors and better contribute to the encyclopedic community. Technical 13 (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Y right!

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

A: If it was an obvious bad faith vandalism by an anonIP or if I consider the vandalism gross, extreme, or excessively repeated. Technical 13 (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Y Sure thats mostly right, but even for obvious vandalism you should start at level 3. For stuff like racial slurs etc. you should star at 4im.

• I based my answer on the lines in WP:UWUL that read:
  • "In cases of gross, extreme, or numerous vandalism it may be appropriate to use the Level 4im warning."
  • "Generally used in the case of excessive or continuous disruption from a user or specific IP." Technical 13 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

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

A: Report them to the Administrator intervention against vandalism group and let them take it from there. Technical 13 (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Y perfect :)

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

A: I would still start with leaving them a level 1 warning if it was reasonable to AGF, otherwise I would leave them a level 3 warning. Technical 13 (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Y Yep

I've also requested a little further clarification on which templates fall under which categories or warnings here. Technical 13 (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Very good work! You have had almost no trouble thus far, so it's time to step it up a notch

) nerdfighter 21:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I've created myself a set of Logs for some of my CVUA tasks and only 2/6 of them are automatically populated by Twinkle but I like the organization they offer even if I have to populate the rest myself (for now until I re-write Twinkle the way I think it should work :p). Check them out User:Technical_13/Logs if you like. :) Technical 13 (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Unit 3:Anti Vandal Tools

Helpful links

WP:Recent changes patrol#Tools

What you have been doing so far is named the old school approach (Besides using Twinkle). 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. Requires Rollback

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.

Which of the tools do you plan to use? Why?

A:I am using Lupin's AVT and Twinkle atm because those are the tools available to me. I have also added {{Wdefcon|prefix=User:MrSomeone/}} to my userbox section on my user page to keep me aware of the current level of vandalism. I do not intend to use any programs I need to install on my computer or any other scripts atm due to the fact that I'm often using public computers or my BlackBerry which has limited resources and doesn't like to load a lot of scripts. Technical 13 (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Upon approval of rollback rights, I would likely use that responsibly as well although I would expect to still use Twinkle's AGF rollback more often than this right.

I will likely not have the ability to use STiki or Huggle for some time. I can see that it may be interesting for me to create a /Logs/Rollback as well. I'll work on that in my free time this weekend. I'll likely write a script that will parse my contributions log and automatically go through and update all of my manual logs. Based on my current scripts I've modified and created, I think this could be fairly simple to do... Technical 13 (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Y Very good answer. Your idea sounds interesting nerdfighter 16:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Unit 4: How do I deal with difficult users?

If you have any questions about this unit, feel free to ask before it begins.

Helpful links

• WP:HARRASS
• WP:admins willing to make difficult blocks
• WP:ANI

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

A:Per M:What is a troll?, "Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia," whereas a simply inquisition about my decision to revert an edit is not, and should never be assumed to be trolling. "They are only trolling when they are motivated by a program of malice rather than ignorance or bias." Per WP:Vandals versus Trolls "For the most part, vandalism and trolling is most often exemplified by newcomers, and care must be taken to differentiate vandalism and trolling from new users simply making common mistakes." I also have taken some interesting points from WP:Please do not bite the newcomers like "Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely caused by ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you are 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they are not. By being calm, interested, and respectful, you do credit to your dignity, and to our project." Technical 13 (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Y Very good answer. No problems here

If a user believes an edit of their which you reverted was not vandalism, and questioned you about it, what should you do?

A: I would listen to their comments and try to answer their questions as completely and honestly as possible making sure to offer links to any appropriate essays or guidelines on the subject. I "may" have been out of line in my revision, and if that is the case I would be happy to fix my reversion mistake. However, if after that there seems to be no agreement between the other user an I, I would request a WP:3O or take the discussion to the WP:DRN. Technical 13 (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Right. Y

What would you do if an admin continually harasses you on your talk page?

A: If after discussion with said admin it doesn't seem plausible that it would stop, I would request a WP:3O, take the issue to WP:ANI, request assistance from WP:RFC/U, or contact arbcom to determine the next best course of action. Technical 13 (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Y tick

What would you do if an several IP users continually harass you?

A: I would simply follow protocols in WP:WARNning them, reporting them to WP:AIAV, and WP:RPP for any article that the IP users may be disrupting to harass me. I will add a notice to my talk page requesting that attacks on that page not be reverted, as I believe that the attacks say more about the attacker than they do about me. Technical 13 (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

{[tick}} Right. If they were attacking you on your talk, you could also request protection there. Good work!

Unit 5: Protection and speedy deletion

Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only anadministrator 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

Helpful links

• WP:DISPUTE
• WP:PROTECT

  WP:SILVERLOCK

  WP:ORANGELOCK

  WP:WHITELOCK

  WP:REDLOCK

  WP:GOLDLOCK

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

A: A page should be semi-protected in cases of persistent vandalism or edit warring by IP users users that aren't at least (auto)confirmed if it is in a namespace not qualified for PC protection and or more than 5% of the edits are considered vandalism. Technical 13 (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Y perfect!

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

A: Pending changes may be used to protect articles against:

1. persistent vandalism
2. violations of the biographies of living persons policy
3. copyright violations

An important note is that PC protection also only protects pages from IP users users that aren't at least (auto)confirmed and it is only available for pages in the (article) and Wikipedia namespaces. Technical 13 (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Y Check mark!

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

A: A page should be fully protected in cases of persistent vandalism or edit warring by users with at least (auto)confirmed status or on high traffic templates.Technical 13 (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Y That's right

What is a content dispute?

A: Content disputes often stem from a lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policies, difference of backgrounds, customs, or standards, or a difference in POV of two editors or two groups of editors. The quickest way to resolve a content dispute is to ask the reasons for a specific reversion or change of content and discuss it with the other editor, while assuming good faith and keeping an open mind. Always try to offer reasonable rationale and point to guidelines and policies where appropriate. If the other editor refuses to do the same, it's not unreasonable to request a WP:3O, request assistance at the WP:DRN or some other venue. If you are requested to be the WP:3O in a dispute between two other editors, always try to make your opening statement in a way that acknowledges both parties concerns so that they will know that you understand their perspective on the matter before offering your opinion and/or any possible solutions to the problem. Technical 13 (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Y Yep.

Speedy deletion

WP:CSD.

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

A: A page should be speedied if it meets any of the criteria listed at WP:CSD and/or no reasonable person would object to the deletion with the given rationale. Technical 13 (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Y Couldn't have said it better myself

Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below.

A:

Extended content

March 2013 Template:Iapprove/sandbox: CSD G7 ({{db-author}}) 11:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Template:Iapproved: CSD G7 ({{db-author}}) 11:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Template:Iapprove: CSD G7 ({{db-author}}) 11:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Template:SupportSubject: multiple criteria (G6, G7, R3) 11:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Template:Roman2dec: CSD G7 ({{db-author}}) 22:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC) ''A Cyborg Manifesto'': multiple criteria (G6, G7, R3) 18:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC) User:Technical 13/Userboxes/DDO/graphic: multiple criteria (U1, G6, G7) 20:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Colornoise (band): CSD G11 ({{db-spam}}); notified Alipan 15 (talk · contribs) 23:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC) April 2013 Not My Turn to Die: Memoirs of a Broken Childhood in Bosnia: CSD G6 ({{db-g6}}) 15:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC) User:Technical 13/RfCU/Timtrent: multiple criteria (U1, G2, G6, G7) 21:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Lintex: CSD G11 ({{db-spam}}); notified Linkytoo (talk · contribs) 13:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC) User:KRIZTE/Gjirafa.com: CSD G8 ({{db-redirnone}}) 19:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Gjirafa, gjirafa.com, gjirafa search engine: CSD G8 ({{db-redirnone}}) 19:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Holistic management: CSD G6 ({{db-move}}) 22:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Young China: multiple criteria (A7, A9, G2, G3, G11); notified Holmeshannah (talk · contribs) 01:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC) User:Technical 13/PROD log: CSD U1 ({{db-userreq}}) 19:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC) User:Technical 13/CSD log: CSD U1 ({{db-userreq}}) 19:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC) National Black Caucus of State Legislators: CSD A7 ({{db-corp}}); notified Info1977 (talk · contribs) 19:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC) User:Technical 13/Sandbox/UserEditAward: CSD U1 ({{db-userreq}}) 20:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC) User:Technical 13/Sandbox: CSD U1 ({{db-userreq}}) 20:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC) User:Technical 13/SandBox2: CSD U1 ({{db-userreq}}) 20:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC) User:Technical 13/Template:SandBox: CSD U1 ({{db-userreq}}) 20:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC) David Bennett Cohen: CSD A7 ({{db-person}}); notified The Hemp Necktie (talk · contribs) 20:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC) User:Abelniak/arbortext: CSD G4 ({{db-repost}}); notified Abelniak (talk · contribs) 16:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/exling.com: multiple criteria (G2, G3, G11); notified Shamim7777 (talk · contribs) 16:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC) User talk:Technical 13: CSD G6 ({{db-move}}) 17:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC) King Kelly (film): CSD G11 ({{db-spam}}); notified Cp222 (talk · contribs) 19:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC) User:Technical 13/Twinkle logs/PROD: CSD U1 ({{db-userreq}}) 12:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC) User:Technical 13/Twinkle logs: CSD U1 ({{db-userreq}}) 12:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC) User:Technical 13/Twinkle logs/CSD: CSD U1 ({{db-userreq}}) 12:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life/Ancestory and ethnicity: CSD G6 ({{db-g6}}) 14:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC) William Leveson/recycle: CSD G6 ({{db-g6}}) 15:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC) William Leveson: CSD G6 ({{db-move}}) 15:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC) King Kelly (film): multiple criteria (G4, G11); notified Csp2013 (talk · contribs) 20:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC) The Wisconsin Stand-Up Comedy Project: CSD A7 ({{db-corp}}); notified Wisucproject (talk · contribs) 21:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC) K.Pudur village: CSD G11 ({{db-spam}}); notified Anandgad1 (talk · contribs) 23:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Franki Love: CSD G11 ({{db-spam}}); notified Bkfrar22 (talk · contribs) 12:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Eric Sanicola: multiple criteria (A7, G11); notified 173.52.88.121 (talk · contribs) 11:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Template:Matlock: CSD T3 ({{db-t3}}); notified AndrewJKD (talk · contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC) User:Rrrathi: CSD G8 ({{db-redirnone}}) 18:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC) FC Linz: CSD A7 ({{db-club}}); notified Darwinek (talk · contribs) 20:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Y Wow, above and beyond! Excellent work. I'll post the next units soon. nerdfighter 16:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Unit 6: Usernames

This is the last unit before the progress test. I'm sure you will have no trouble with this nerdfighter 17:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Helpful links

• Special:Log/newusers
• WP:USERNAME
• WP:BADNAME

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

• Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, usernames that impersonate other people, or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.

Y Right on

• Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.

Y Yes

• Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.

Y Right.

• Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.

Note: I realize that I should have put "disruptive" and "offensive" in the same category with "Usernames implying shared use" as a new one..

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

DJohnson

A: Real names Y

I would first welcome the user to wikipedia and offer them a THinvite. I would then proceed to inform the user that while the use of the username "DJohnson" is not necessarily bad, it may make a contributor more vulnerable to issues such as harassment, both on and off Wikipedia. Also, it might be noted that this username might imply a connection to Dwayne Johnson, Dick Johnson^{(Richard Johnson)}, Don Johnson, Dennis Johnson, David Johnson, Damien Johnson, and so-forth. That being said, a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided. I would also let them know the if after reconsideration they decide against using their real name, they may follow the directions for changing their username.

• As a side note, changing username process is shortly going to be undergoing a massive change itself. Read up on WT:Changing username/Usurpations#.5Ben.5D Change to wiki account system and account renaming Technical 13 (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

LMedicalCentre

A: WP:ORGNAME, Usernames implying shared use, Shared accounts Y

Fuqudik

A: WP:U#Disruptive or offensive usernames Y

ColesStaff

A: WP:CORPNAME, Usernames implying shared use, Shared accounts Y

~~~~

A: WP:U#Misleading usernames Y

172.295.64.27

A: WP:U#Misleading usernames Y

Bieberisgay

A: WP:U#Disruptive or offensive usernames Y

Perfect. nerdfighter 23:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Unit 7: 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!

Scenario 1

You encounter an IP vandalising Stephen Harper by adding in statements that he is a vampire.

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

A: It would be considered vandalism as it would be a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Y check

• Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

A: WP:VANDAL, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:LIBEL Y check

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

A: {{Whois|Name of owner}} and {{subst:Uw-vandalism2}} then {{subst:Uw-vandalism3}} and finally {{subst:Uw-vandalism4}}

• 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, not unless I revert it a fourth time within 24 hours, and in this case due to the BLP aspect of, the 3RR doesn't apply at all. Personally, I'd have reported the user and possibly requested PC1/semi on the page by this point. Y Check! Great answer.

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

A: {{IPvandal}} should be used because it is an IP vandalizing the page. Y Check

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

A: Persistent blatant vandalism attack on a BLP. Y Check

Scenario 2

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

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

A:Patent nonsense is not considered vandalism. Therefor, it would be considered a good faith edit. Technical 13 (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Y Check

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

A: I would think that a first warning for this might be {{subst:uw-test1}}. Technical 13 (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Y Check

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

A: I would use Rollback-AGF. Technical 13 (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Y Check

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

A: I would give a level 4 warning on their talk page (after checking the talk page's edit history to make sure they hadn't removed other warnings that should have made the current level 3 on their page a level 4, I've actually seen this is reasonably common.) If I found through checking their talk page history that they were being sneaky and hiding warnings that would have made the level 3 a level 4, or if they removed a 4im, I would report them, otherwise I would only report them if they made another vandal edit after receiving the level 4. Technical 13 (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Y Check

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

A: They can be indefinitely blocked, but that does not mean that they are infinitely blocked and they can still request an unblock which could be granted if they can convince an administrator that they know what they did wrong, why it was wrong, promise not to do it again, and claim to be productive on wikipedia. Technical 13 (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Y Check

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

A: {{Vandal}} is the template that would be used. Technical 13 (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Y Check

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

A: "Persistent vandalism" would be sufficient. Technical 13 (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Y Check

Scenario 3

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

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

A: I would revert the edit to Laptop as an AGF revert and I would leave a... Oh... See next answer... Y Ha, yep

• If you do revert which warning template would you use?

A: {{subst:uw-advert4im}} on the users talk page. Y Sure

• Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?

A: I would tag the article for speedy and I would use Twinkle to tag it as G11 and G12. Y Check

• Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?

A: I would also leave a {{subst:uw-coi-username|Laptops Inc}} template on their userpage. Technical 13 (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Y Yep!

• Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?

A: Due to the fact that I would leave a warning message on their talk page and give them a good faith chance to abandon the name I would report the user to RFCN instead of UAA when that method failed as being in violation of CORPNAME and ISU. Technical 13 (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Y +0.5 for catching my mistake I'm going to give you half marks on this one because blatently inappropriate usernames, such as the one in this scenario, go to WP:UAA. Only usernames that you are unsure of go to WP:RFCN.

• Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Instructions states: "... Don't ask someone to give up their name willingly if you're going to ask an administrator to block them. Either discuss or report." Technical 13 (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Results

Your Score: 18.5/18

Final Exam

Good luck! — Ross Hill 14:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Part 1 (25%)

For each of these examples, please state whether an edit should be considered vandalism or good faith (please also include a brief reason).

Marks: 5
Marks obtained: 5

1. A user inserts 'HAHAHAHAHAHA! HE IS SO FAT' into an article.

   Blatant attack == vandalism Y

2. A user adds their signature over and over into an article.

   Typically if the user has a very low edit count or a very short period on enwp I would AGF as test edit. Y

3. A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article.

   Probably vandalism unless they happen to be John Smith and then I would AGF and point them to NPOV and COI Y

4. A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article.

   I would AGF as test edit. Y

5. A user removes sources information from an article, with the summary 'this is wrong'.

   I would AGF, revert, and possibly leave a notice/warn template on their user page. Y

• Technical 13 (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, T13, I'll grade tomorrow evening . Regards, Ross HillTalk to me! 03:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Part 2 (20%)

What type of warning you would give an editor in the following scenarios. If you don't believe a warning is appropriate outline what you would do instead (make sure you state all the actions you would take).

Marks: 11
Marks obtained: 10

1. A user blanks Cheesecake.

   First offense (of any kind): AGF and leave {{Uw-delete1}}; otherwise leave appropriate level 1-4. Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

   Y

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

   First offense (of any kind): AGF and leave {{Uw-defam1}}; otherwise leave appropriate level 1-4. Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

   Y. {{Uw-attempt}} would be better.

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

   First offense (of any kind): AGF and leave {{Uw-test1}}; otherwise leave appropriate level 1-4. Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

   Y {{Uw-efsummary}} would be better.

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

   First offense (of any kind): AGF and leave {{Uw-vandalism1}}; otherwise leave appropriate level 1-4. Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

   Y

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

   First offense (of any kind): AGF and leave {{Uw-delete1}}; otherwise leave appropriate level 1-4. Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

   Y

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

   First offense (of any kind): AGF and leave {{Uw-test1}}; otherwise leave appropriate level 1-4. Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

   Y

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

   First offense (of any kind): AGF and leave {{Uw-disruptive1}}; otherwise leave appropriate level 1-4. Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

   Y {{Uw-vandalism1}} is also acceptable.

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

   First offense (of any kind): AGF and leave {{Uw-biog1}}; otherwise leave appropriate level 1-4. Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

   Y

9. A user blanks Personal computer for a fifth time.

   Assuming that all of the proper {{Uw-delete1}} — {{Uw-delete4}} templates had been placed on the users page, I wouldn't warn or communicate with the user at all. I would simply report the user to WP:AIV using Twinkle's ARV module. Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

   Y

10. 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).

    Remain CALM, everyone has a bad day. Give the user a {{Plate}} with a comment with a tone of "Hello 122.150.119.59! I'm sorry you seem to be having a hard day or are frustrated with me. Have this plate of cookies (I wouldn't mind if you shared some back with me), and let's see if we can work this animosity between us out. I hope to hear back from you in a productive manner soon and I wish you well until then! Technical 13 (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2015" Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

    Y Also acceptable. But wouldn't it be better to report the matter to ANI? Given you have a number of problems with that user, you should immediately go to ANI. Remember WP:DENY, you do not want to worsen the situation.

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

    First offense (of any kind): AGF and leave {{Uw-image1}}; otherwise leave appropriate level 1-4. Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

    Y

Part 3 (15%)

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).

Marks: 8
Marks obtained: 8

1. TheMainStreetBand

   Implied shared use

2. Poopbubbles

   Not particularly offensive, WP:AGF

3. Brian's Bot

   No issues if it is a bot account, otherwise Misleading due to "bot"

4. sadjh53465mhjjhjhllghkfu23hlk99100110hj

   confusing username as it is patent nonsense

5. Bobsysop

   Misleading due to "sysop"

6. 12:12, 23 June 2012

   confusing username as it is just a time/date stamp

7. PMiller

   impersonating a famous person -- If they claim to be the real deal, send to WP:OTRS

8. OfficialJustinBieber

   impersonating a famous person -- If they claim to be the real deal, send to WP:OTRS

Y all correct.

• Due to the complexity of what to do, all I can say that I would do for each is use WP:BADNAME as a flow chart of sorts and escalate it to the lowest necessary level to resolve any possible issues. Technical 13 (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Part 4 (10%)

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

Marks: 7
Marks obtained: 7

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

   WP:NOT3RR bullet #3 says yes, only if it is obvious, so the technical answer to the question is no.

   Y

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

   They should be reported on WP:AIV if:

   1. The edits of the reported user must be obvious vandalism or obvious spam.
   2. The user must have been given enough warnings to stop their disruptive behavior.
   3. The warnings must have been given recently and the users must be active now, especially for unregistered users.
   4. Requests for further sanctions against a blocked user (e.g., talk page, e-mail blocks) should go to AN/I, as a bot automatically removes accounts here that are blocked.

   Y

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

   AN/I

   Y I think WP:LTA is the answer, but ANI is also possible.

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

   UAA

   Y

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

   WP:RFC/U or AN/I

   Y

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

   Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

   Y

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

   Depending on the nature of the violation... It may be appropriate to tag it as a CSD:G10, and blank the page until an admin or in some cases, an oversighter can deal with it appropriately. It may be appropriate to just remove the edit that was an issue and get the edits revdel or oversighted which may be quickly done by getting an admin or oversighter on IRC and reporting it to Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. It may also be appropriate in other cases to report it the to BLP noticeboard.

   Y

• I actually use Twinkle to make all of these reports, and Twinkle reminds me step by step of all of the information needed for each one. As for the process if I was to do it manually, there are cases I have no clue but I know that if I make sure to leave as much relevant detail as I can in the report and notify the user on their talk page as is appropriate I should be okay. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Part 5 - Theory in practice (30%)

Marks: 16
Marks obtained: 15

1. Find and revert three instances of vandalism (by different editors on different pages), and appropriately warn the editor. Please give the diffs the warning below.

1. 88.104.24.150
2. 207.70.191.74
3. Amshoft

   Y for all 3 of them.

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

1. 88.104.24.150
2. VidhyaDhivya

• Bryancyriel
• 216.170.90.162
• 27.106.43.116

Y Both are fine.

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

1. reported to AIAV for vandalism after final warning on Banjo (diff)

   Y

2. reported to AIAV as a vandalism only account and potential SOCK of another vandalism only account.

   Y

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

1. Retry (Also, started discussion on talk page)

   N Page was not protected

2. Centipede

   Y

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

1. Dhukhi Aadmi: multiple criteria (A1, G2); notified DhukHi AaDmI (talk · contribs) 03:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

   Y

6. Correctly report one username as a breach of policy.

1. Pierre Fortin Art (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – reported to UAA for violation of the username policy as a promotional username. User page is also tagged for CSD:G11 by another user. Also may be appropriate to check on Pierre.concept.art (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) as that is the user name that created this account.. — 12:20, Jan 25, 2014 (UTC)‎

   Y

Final score

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighing	Your percentage
1	5	5	25	100
2	11	10	20	91
3	8	8	15	100
4	7	7	10	100
5	16	15	30	94
TOTAL	47	45	100	96

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 96% and no issues came up during your 5 day monitoring period; well done.

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

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.