User talk:Zippybonzo/Training/CVUA/Mwwv

Hello, welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. 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.

Once you graduate I will copy this page into your userspace so you have a record of your training and a reference for the future.

Twinkle

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

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

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.

Sorry it took me so long to answer these, i was gonna do it then i got sidetracked by someone literally dying like 20 minutes ago and I edited their article to reflect their death (and also scored an ITN nom!). Will answer these whenever I can. mwwv ^converse∫_edits — Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

A good faith edit is an edit that was done without the intent to harm the value of Wikipedia, even if it may seem harmful. A vandalism edit is made with the intent to harm Wikipedia. I would tell the difference by applying any policies and guidelines that I know of, thinking about the edit logically, looking at the editor's contributions and checking their revert rate and why those edits were reverted. Y

Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. You don't need to revert the example you find, and I am happy for you to use previous undos in your edit history if you wish.

Good faith

[1] [2] [3]

Vandalism

[4] [5] [6]

all seems good, diff 4 wasn’t working but you have the general idea of it :) Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 17:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Mwwv, can you start here, as I believe you use ultraviolet for antivandalism instead of twinkle so it's irrelevant :) Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them)

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 offenses), 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.

Heya Mwwv, I’ll review your previous answers now, but can you start on this section :), I’m currently on vacation so don’t expect immediate replies as I’m not checking the site much :) Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 12:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer the following questions

Why do we warn users?

To notify them that they did something wrong and to hopefully make them stop. Y

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

When a user/IP has made continuous or excessive disruptive contributions. Y, or in the event that they make for example 3 edits to different pages, and you revert them all at the same time, instead of 3 warnings, you could use a 4im, or when you feel the vandalism incredibly severe, such as inserting personal attacks/harassing remarks into articles. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 17:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes, you can do it by appending subst: at the beginning of a template. Y

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

Report them to WP:AIV. Y

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

{{subst:uw-vandalism1}} first warning when a user vandalizes for the first time

{{subst:uw-unsourced1}} first warning when a user adds unsourced statements

{{subst:uw-delete1}} first warning when a user removes content without explaining why

Y muy bien for all of them :) Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 17:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC) 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}}.[reply]

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

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

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff	My comment
1	[7]	none	Y
2	[8]	none	Y
3	[9]	none	Y
4	[10]	none	Y
5	[11]	apologies for the slowdown, haven't had much motivation recently and people have been ~~unfortunately~~ behaving themselves	Y
6	[12]	none	Y
7	[13]	none	Y
8	[14]	report to aiv: [15]	Y
9	[16]	none	Y
10	[17]	none	Y
11	[18]	none	Y
12	[19]	none	Y
13	[20]	none	Y
14	[21]	none	Y
15	[22]	none	Y

Great! I never find any vandalism these days because Huggle won't connect to the non-IRC feed for some reason, so good job finding some! Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 16:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shared IP tagging

There are a number of IP user talk page templates which show helpful information to IP users and those wishing to warn or block them. There is a list of these templates

{{Shared IP}} - For general shared IP addresses.
{{ISP}} - A modified version specifically for use with ISP organizations.
{{Shared IP edu}} - A modified version specifically for use with educational institutions.
{{Shared IP gov}} - A modified version specifically for use with government agencies.
{{Shared IP corp}} - A modified version specifically for use with businesses.
{{Shared IP address (public)}} - A modified version specifically for use with public terminals such as in libraries, etc.
{{Mobile IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with a mobile device's IP.
{{Dynamic IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with dynamic IPs.
{{Static IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with static IPs which may be used by more than one person.

Each of these templates take two parameters, one is the organisation to which the IP address is registered (which can be found out using the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page. The other is for the host name (which is optional) and can also be found out from the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page.

Also, given that different people use the IP address, older messages are sometimes refused so as to not confuse the current user of the IP. Generally any messages for the last one-two months are removed, collapsed, or archived. The templates available for this include:

{{OW}} for when the messages are deleted from the talk page.
{{Old IP warnings top}} and {{Old IP warnings bottom}} for collapsing the user warnings and leaving them on the talk page.
{{Warning archive notice}} for when the messages are archived, and that archiving follows the usually naming sequence (that is, /Archive 1).

NOTE: All of the templates in this section are not substituted (so don't use "subst:").

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 through Special: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.

If you would like to use, or learn to use any of the following tools, please leave a comment below;

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.

SWViewer

SWViewer is a tool that allows you to monitor possibly unconstructive changes from multiple Wikimedia wikis, to use it you require the rollback user right.

RedWarn

RedWarn is an incredibly useful anti-vandalism tool, which can be used to accept pending changes, and revert unconstructive edits. RedWarn contains many automation features, such as opening the warn menu and automatically selecting a reason and warning level after reverting.

AntiVandal

AntiVandal is an powerful tool, similar to Huggle, that allows you to revert and warn users with 1 button. Use of this tool requires the rollback user right, or inclusion on its whitelist.

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, it requires the rollback user right.

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?

Engaging with trolls will only fuel them, with them knowing that people acknowledge their edits and are taking time out of their day to view them, and may give them motivation to continue. Denying recognition might make said troll lose interest, since they aren't eliciting any reactions.

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

A troll will likely be less... subtle, to say the least, in any harassment they attempt to perform on anyone. Good-faith editors will be more forgiving and understanding, having decency in what they ask of one. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 16:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yep, good faith editors might get a bit angry, but you can usually tell they mean well, they're just frustrated. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 16:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection and speedy deletion

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

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

Temporarily, significant and persistent temporary vandalism, edit warring/content dispute by unregistered and new users, and vandalism/edit warring by IP hoppers. Permanently, persistent vandalism and/or BLP violations after a failed attempt(s) at protection.

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes ~~level 1~~ protected?

Persistent vandalism, copyvios, and BLP violations. also you're about 7 years late to the leveled pending changes party.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Edit warring/content dispute with an extended-confirmed user(s), having been sent to WP:DRV, as well as some very-highly used/visible files, templates, and modules.

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

If it has been repeatedly created after being deleted.

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

If it has been subject to persistent general disruption.

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

[23] (this was a while back but it probably still holds up) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 16:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

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

What does "very briefly no need to go through the criteria" mean? I have only seen CSD'd pages that have been tagged with the criteria beforehand.

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.

See User:mwwv/CSD log. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 16:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good! @Mwwv, you can progress to the Usernames section :) Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 16:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames

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

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

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

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

DJohnson

Nothing. While usernames containing someone's full name can be considered misleading, in this specific case it's harmless due to the amount of D. Johnsons that currently exist (likewise with someone like Jane Smith), unless the user were to edit as if they were acting as a specific D. Johnson.

LMedicalCentre

Promotional username since it's the name of a company, wait until they edit and if their edits are promotional report to UAA.

Fuqudik

Disruptive username, pronouncing it should make it clear, report to UAA directly.

ColesStaff

Misleading username, shared account, leave a note such as {{subst:uw-username|it implies shared use}} on their talk page and report to UAA when necessary.

~~~~

Misleading username due to conflicting with signatures, report to UAA.

172.295.64.27

Misleading username since it's an IP who may or may not be the owner of that account. Ask them to verify their identity on their talk page, report to UAA in the case of either no answer or failing to prove it.

It's a bit of an edge case, I would assume that it is an IP and if it made any questionable edits then I'd report to AIV.

Bieberisgay

Offensive username, haha hating on justin bibber using gay as insult funny and very cool, report to UAA. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{[tick}}

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 Justin Bieber by adding in statements that he is gay.

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

Vandalism, usually edits mentioning that someone is gay to someone who hasn't declared it are vandalism.

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

WP:V

and BLP

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

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?

No, since the vandalism will likely be obvious, and the 3RR has exceptions for that.

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

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

Vandalism after final warning.

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?

Good faith, since the edit could easily just be testing if the user can edit the article.

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

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

I use ultraviolet, but rollback-agf. (it would be the green thumbs up for ultraviolet)

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?

Depends widely. Assuming many factors that were thought of at the time of this training document being made (new user, has not edited before, using their account on PC, etc.), yes. At that point they may be considered a vandalism-only account since they have not heeded any warnings they have on their talk page.

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

Yes.

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

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

Vandalism-only account.

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?

Yes, using the regular rollback option (same with ultraviolet).

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

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

Yes, I would tag it with {{db-g11}} (assuming that the text promotes the company, which it probably does).

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

Yes, {{subst:uw-coi-username|Laptops Inc}}.

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

Yes, it violates being promotional. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Results

Your Score: @Mvww: great, you got full marks here, can you proceed to the monitoring period, I'll keep an eye on your edits until Friday assuming I don't see anything alarming, then you can proceed to the final test :) Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 08:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Congratulations now for the next step. The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced vandalism fighters to revert vandalism with the click of one button. Please read WP:Rollback.

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

The rollback button may only be used in the case of vandalism. It cannot be used to revert any good-faith edits. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 17:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring period

Congratulations! You have completed the first section of the anti-vandalism course, well done. Now that we've been through everything that you need to know as a vandal patroller, you will be given a 5 day monitoring period. During this time, you are free to revert vandalism (and edit Wikipedia) as you normally do; I will monitor your progress in anti-vandalism. If there are any issues, I will raise them with you and if you have any problems, you are free to ask me. After one to three days, if I am satisfied with your progress, you will take the final test; passing this will mean you graduate from the CVUA. Good luck!

If you have any problems or trouble along the way please leave a message in this section on my talk page. If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look.

Final Exam

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.

@Mwwv: heya, can you complete the test, after which I'll email you your results to you and include a certificate if you pass :) best of luck Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them)

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (25%)

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).

A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article. What would you do if it was their first warning? What about after that.
Leave {{uw-test1}} on their talk page, increasing in number after they continue, up until {{uw-generic4}}. If they keep going, report to AIV.
A user adds their signature to an article after one being given a {{Uw-articlesig}} warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?
~~how does some random guy getting uw-articlesig relate to this user~~ I would warn them with {{uw-disruptive2}}, continuing up the warning ladder should they continue.
A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?
Revert it and give them {{uw-advert1}}, continuing up the ladder should they continue and report them to ANI
A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
Leave {{uw-test1}} on their talk page, continue as with the first question (except report them to ANI if they continue since it's not blatantly vandalistic).
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?
Warn them with {{uw-delete1}}, continuing up the ladder. If they had a history of positive contributions, I would assume that the account had been compromised and I would possibly report it to AN. Should the history be disruptive, they're going straight to ANI.

Part 2 (15%)

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.

A user blanks Cheesecake.
{{uw-blank1}}
A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
{{uw-attempt1}}
A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
{{uw-efsummary}}
A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
{{uw-vandalism1}}
A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
{{uw-delete1}}
A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
{{uw-test1}}
A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
{{uw-advert1}}
A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
{{uw-biog1}}
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
{{uw-delete4im}}
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
Report to AIV.
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).
Depending on severity, report them to ANI, else try and talk it out with them.
A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
{{uw-test1}}

Part 3 (10%)

What CSD tag you would put on the following articles (The content below is the article's content).

Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
{{db-g11}}
Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
{{db-g11}}
Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
{{db-g1}}
A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
{{db-g3}}/{{db-a11}}
Fuck Wiki!
{{db-g3}}

What would you do in the following circumstance:

A user blanks a page they very recently created.
- Tag it with {{db-G7}}.

After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
- Leave {{uw-blank1}}, which both serves to warn them and explains why they shouldn't do what they did, and tag the article with {{db-a3}} instead.

Part 4 (10%)

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).

TheMainStreetBand
Promotional since it mentions the name of a band, but only if the user edits promotionally. Report to UAA if the latter is fulfilled.
Poopbubbles
Disruptive, considering someone with a username that would match filter 46 likely isn't here to contribute constructively. Report to UAA.
Brian's Bot
Misleading with the "bot" suffix. Report to UAA.
sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
Disruptive considering that it's complete gibberish and its length, report to UAA.
Bobsysop
Misleading due to the inclusion of "sysop". Report to UAA.
12:12, 23 June 2012
Misleading due to it resembling a signature timestamp. Report to UAA.
PMiller
Not a violation, unless the user acts like a specific P. Miller.
OfficialJustinBieber
Misleading since it impersonates another person. Report to UAA.

Part 5 (10%)

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

Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
In the case of non-obvious vandalism, yes.
Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
WP:AIV, by using twinkle, ultraviolet, or doing the report manually.
Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
WP:ANI, by adding a new section describing what the abuse is.
Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
WP:UAA, by using twinkle, ultraviolet, or doing the report manually.
Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
WP:ANI, by adding a new section describing the personal attack made.
Where and how should an edit war be reported?
WP:AN3, by using twinkle or the like, or doing the report manually.
Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
WP:BLPN, by adding a new section describing what BLP violations may be being committed. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 20:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part 6 - Theory in practice (30%)

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.

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

[27]

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

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

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

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

Final score

Part	Total available	Percentage weighting
1	5	25
2	11	15
3	8	10
4	8	10
5	7	10
6	18	30
TOTAL	51	100

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 x% and no issues came up during your x 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}}:

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.

{{subst:Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Graduate|1=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 '''''x'''''% and '''''no''''' issues came up during your ''x'' day monitoring period; well done and congratulations again. Further information on your achievement can be found [[User:Zippybonzo/CVUA/|here]]. ~~~~}}