User:Jianhui67/My 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.

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 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.

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 edit is not made on purpose, and is unintentional. It can be a mistake made, like adding original research or adding information that is untrue that may harm Wikipedia. They can be unhelpful and harmful too. The user does not know so in the first place, so he may have make that edit, and have been reverted as a good faith edit. He may want to improve Wikipedia, but does not know in the first place the edit that he made can be insulting or harm Wikipedia. This happens to newcomers or IP users who are new here and do not really know about the rules. A vandalism edit is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, inserting obvious nonsense into a page, shouting, adding personal comments that are insulting, spamming on talk pages or scolding vulgarities on an article. Vandalism also can be link or image spam, gaming the Wikipedia system and even reverting vandalbot's reverts like ClueBotNG. Doing these is flouting Wikipedia's rules and regulations, as well as the policies. A good faith edit will not seem as crude as a vandalism edit. Vandalism edits is insulting and will seem annoying. Bad-faith placing of non-content tags, bad-faith removing tags, illegitimate blanking, using copyrighted content or images, adding bad, shocking or obscene images, adding bad links, vulgarities, inserting obvious and irrelevant nonsense that are seen on the article would be vandalic edits. So in overall, good faith edits are made with good intentions, and are not meant to cause harm to the article, while vandalism edits are intended to do or cause harm to an article.

That sentence is exactly right, and a good conclusion to the rest of what you said. I will just point out though, that a good faith edit can be made on purpose. For example, most test edits are made in good faith, however they are made on purpose.

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

First example: [1]

Second example: [2]

I don't think this is a good faith edit because the user is trying to use Wikipedia for promotion and in so doing comprise the integrity of the project. See {{subst:uw-spam1}}.

Third example: [3] - Can this be one?

Looks like a good faith edit to me, maybe warn them with {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}

Fourth example: [4]

Fifth example: [5] - something edited in non-english

Sixth example: [6] - something edited in non-english

Vandalism

First example: [1]

First example warning: [1W]

Second example: [2]

Second example warning: [2W]

I would have used {{subst:uw-test1}}

Third example: [3] - Is this counted? He blanked some of the content without telling why.

Third example warning: [3W]

I would have used {{subst:uw-delete1}}

Fourth example: [4]

I would have called this a good faith test edit.

Fourth example warning: [4W]

So warn them with {{subst:uw-test1}}

Fifth example: [5]

I would have called this a good faith test edit.

Fifth example warning: [5W]

So warn them with {{subst:uw-test1}}

Sixth example: [6]

Seventh example: [7]

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}}.

Warning and reporting

When you use Twinkle to warn a user, you have a number of options to choose from: you can select the kind of warning (for different offences), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4, for increasing severity). Knowing which warning to issue and what level is very important. Further information can be found at WP:WARN and WP:UWUL.

Please answer the following questions

Why do we warn users?

We warn users to inform that their edits violates Wikipedia's policies. Some may not know that may have violated Wikipedia's policies, but some have bad intentions to harm Wikipedia. Vandalism is something that all the users should kick off and avoid, so placing the right tags for each cases (e.g vandalism, illegitimate deletion of content or other cases), to let them know what is their mistake, and they may change their attitude to become good contributors. If they still continue to violates Wikipedia's policies and after a lot of warnings, report to an administrator or write a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to ask for a block for the vandal.

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

When a user keeps on violating Wikipedia's policies and has bad faith and persistent vandalism, and excessively disrupt Wikipedia, so we give them their only warning to warn them to stop.

It's a one and only warning. Generally used in the case of excessive or continuous disruption from a user or specific IP (also see {{subst:uw-longterm}}. I generally don't use 4im warnings (except in cases of an extreme BLP vio or extreme vandalism) preferring to use a level 3 then level 4.

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

Yes, so that the template will be substituted. Twinkle does that automatically. When you place the template, put the 'subst:' on the left side of the template name and after the brackets. Like {{subst:template name}}.

The reason we substitute is so that the warning you leave won't change if the template is later changed.

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

Report him at WP:AIV or the talk page of an administrator to request for a block for him.

Generally at WP:AIV, so that you get a faster response. Noticeboards are generally better than individual admin's talk pages, although there are exceptions.

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

1. {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} This is the first vandalism edit warning. It tells the user that vandalism is prohibited and his edits are reverted.

2. {{subst:uw-delete1}} This is the first deletion of content warning. It tells the user that blanking is not allowed and inappropriate, unless he provides an edit summary why he blanked some of the content, and his edits are reverted.

3. {{subst:uw-spam1|Article}} This is the first warning of adding inappropriate links to articles. It tells the user not to add those kind of links as they are in the criteria of links to be avoided and his edits are reverted.

4. {{subst:uw-create1}} This is the first warning of creating inappropriate articles. It tells the user not to create those kind of articles and the articles they created should be suitable for the criteria in the content policies and the page has been removed.

5. {{subst:uw-biog1}} This is the first warning of writing unsourced biography of a living person. It tells the user not to add biographies of living persons to a page about a living person unless he has a reliable and verifiable source, as Wikipedia is very strict about how we write about living people, and his edits have been reverted.

6. {{subst:uw-image1}} This is the first warning of adding inappropriate images to an article. It tells the user not to add inappropriate images to article, because it may cause harm to the article and Wikipedia, and his edits have been reverted, and image has been successfully removed.

7. {{subst:uw-speedy1}} This is the first warning of deleting speedy deletion template on an article that a user may have created it himself. It tells the user not to remove the speedy deletion template on article that he created himself, as that is inappropriate, but he can contest the speedy deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion. And the admins will consider the reasoning before deciding whether to delete the article.

Jianhui67 (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2013 (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 your revert	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff	Marker's comment (optional)
1	[1]	[1W] (warning)	Y
2	[2] [2(AIV)]	[2W] He had more than 1 vandalism edit.	Y I would have given them another warning as you did.
3	[3] [3(AIV)]	[3W]	Y
4	[4]	[4W]	Y
5	[5]	[5W] There was 2 warnings because ClueBotNG and I warned at the same time. But both of us have different reverts.	Y
6	[6]	[6W] I bet he wanted to write 'gay' but wrote 'gat' instead.	Y
7	[7]	[7W]	Y Probably could have been a test edit too, but could also have been vandalism.
8	[8]	[8W] 1st warning	Y
9	[9]	[9W] 2nd warning	Y An example of where warning stopped them from continuing the removal of content. Y
10	[10]	[10W]	Y
11	[11]	[11W]	Y
12	[12]	[12W]	Y
13	[13]	[13W] He made 6 edits. But I think they are test edits because I think he is trying to experiment.	Y
14	[14]	[14W]	Y
15	[15]	[15W]	I would have warned with {{subst:uw-blp4im}} or {{subst:uw-defam4im}}. BLP violations are something which Wikipedia takes very seriously, and the warnings you give can reflect that if the edit was very obviously in bad faith.
16	[16]	[16W]	Y

NOTE:1, 4 and 13 are test edits. The 'W' means warning of the user. Added a 16 due to 13 being test edit revert.

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.

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.

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 the trolls will make them look themselves more powerful, as they wanted to gain empowerment and attention from others, and they will vandalize even more. This is just like a case here [1] on 13 October 2012 and was in the past, which my user page got vandalized a lot of times by the same vandal. Engaging with them will make yourself and Wikipedia look bad in front of others also, so denying recognition and infamy neutralizes the primary motivators for vandalism and disruption.; Y Especially the last sentence.

How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?: A good faith user will sound polite and civil, and may stop their edits once you revert them and give them an explanation to why the edit is inappropriate. A troll will sound insulting, provoking, disturbing, disrupting and irritating, and they will have bad faith.; Y

What would you do if there was a user trolling or harassing you?: I will remain calm, ignore him and not engage with him, but report him at WP:ANI.; Y

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?: When the page has a lot of IP users vandalism edits, as semi-protected pages only allow autoconfirmed users to edit. IP addresses and new users cannot edit the page.; Y But not just vandalism.

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?: When there is persistent vandalism, violations of WP:BLP policy and copyright violations. Reviewers can decide to accept or decline the edits made by IP and new users. The pages will be marked pending revision in the page history.; Y

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?: When the page has users engaging in persistent edit warring, persistent vandalism and is a high traffic page. Though persistent vandalism and high trafficker page may lead to full protection of an article, the chances of it is still low.; Y Full protection is only used when semi-protection won't achieve the same outcome. For example if autoconfirmed editors are edit warring or there is persistent sockpuppetry of autoconfirmed accounts.

In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?: When after a page is deleted and users still repeated recreated the page again and again. Users who want to recreate the page should look for an administrator, but better, the admin who deleted the page before.; Y

In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?: When the talk page has a severe case of IP vandalism, but the protection is only for a short period of time.; Y

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

[1]

Tell me one thing you did incorrectly when you left the request? Also just a

quick hint for URL links, have a look at Help:Link#Http: and_https:, might make things a bit easier.

What did I do wrong? I thought I left the request correctly? Jianhui67 (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

New requests go at the top of the page.

Did not notice until I saw my the date 2 August - 1 August - 2 Auugust (mine). By the way, the page is already semi-protected for one week so it should be considered correct except for that mistake

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

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

When the author who created the page request the page to be speedily deleted by blanking the page etc, or the page itself has no significance and value, or it is advertising something or is nonsensical or vandalism.

Yep pretty much except that it's an demonstration of importance or significant not that it isn't significant or valuable. Basically a page can be speedily deleted for certain reasons the community has decided to delegate that the authority to an individual admin to make the decision. Generally when there shouldn't be anyone (apart from maybe the page creator) who would object and it's clear cut.

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.: 1st example: [1] Marked with WP:CSD#A1

Content: Car house appears in several English, Yorkshire and Lancashire place names but has no listed meaning or origin. Is is related in the railway industry (American deriv rail road car) and possible mining industry?

2nd example: [2] Marked with WP:CSD#G11

Content: Brütal Casual Attire In fashion, Brütal Casual Attire is a dress code for high ceremonies and important occasions, where the choice of the clothes is completely random.

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 wrong with this username. 'Doctor Johnson' seems ok unless he wants to impersonate someone else.

LMedicalCentre

Promotional and misleading username, as it promotes a medical centre. This should be reported to WP:UAA.

Unless there are promotional edits (and even if there are) {{subst:uw-username}} or {{subst:uw-username-coi}} would be better.

Fuqudik

Offensive username. As you can see, the words inside meant 'Fuck you dick', which are vulgarities. Report to WP:UAA.

ColesStaff

Promotional username. It represents a staff or post in Coles, which is a company or organisation.

Also implies shared use. I'd use {{subst:uw-username}} or {{subst:uw-username-coi}}.

~~~~

Misleading username. This is the four tildes and is a signature format. Report to WP:UAA.

Instead of reporting it would be better to use {{subst:uw-username}} to explain the problem.

172.295.64.27

Misleading username as that seems like an IP address. It gives the other users the impression of 'are you an anonymous user'. Report to WP:UAA

Instead of reporting it would be better to use {{subst:uw-username}} to explain the problem.

Bieberisgay

Disruptive and offensive username. Insults that Justin Bieber is gay. Report to WP:UAA.

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?

Ans: Vandalism edits. If it is a good faith edit, he would have provided relevant references for what he wrote. Besides, the word 'gay' is offensive.

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

Ans: WP:BLP and WP:Vandalism.

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

Ans: {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} if it is his first one but can also be {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} if he had a lot of multiple vandalic edits.

{{uw-blp2}} or {{uw-defam2}} would have been a more appropriate warning.

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?

Ans: No. Vandalism reverts is different from the 3-revert rule.

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

Ans: IP vandal, as the vandal is an anonymous IP user.

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

Ans: The page that was vandalized by him and his repeated vandalism after warnings.

You could have also added that there were violations of the BLP policy.

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?

Ans: Vandalism if his account is only used for vandalizing Wikipedia, but could be a good faith test edit if this user is new and probably trying to figure things out but accidentally did that mistake.

It's a good faith edit, it's their first edit so the account has so far only been used for vandalism, however the edit shows that they were probably experiment. In any case you should generally AGF on the first edit.

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

Ans: {{subst:test1}}

Except {{uw-test1}} is better.

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

Ans: Rollback (Blue} as that may be a test edit.

The green one is for good faith edits. But you can generally use blue in all situations.

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?

Ans: No. He has not received a level 4 or 4im warning on his talk page.

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

Ans: Probably, if his account is only used for vandalism.

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

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

Ans: His repeated vandalism and test edits after warnings and the pages he vandalized.

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?

Ans: Rollback (VANDAL} as advertising is not allowed in Wikipedia.

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

Ans: {{subst:uw-advert1}}

{{uw-spam1}} would be more appropriate.

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

Ans: Yes with WP:CSD#G11 for unambiguous advertising or promotion and WP:CSD#G12 as it is a copyright infringement of that company website.

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

Ans: Yes and that would be {{uw-username}}, but in some cases, if his edits are spamming links and obvious advertising, he will not be informed.

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

Ans: Yes. It is a promotional username.

Results

Your Score:

Scenario 1: 10/12
Scenario 2: 12.5/14
Scenario 3: 9/10
TOTAL: 31.5/36

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 generally) 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 five 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 on this page's talk page. If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look.

Done

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.

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.
Good faith test edit. They may be new and unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, and may have accidentally made that mistake. Revert using AGF the first time and warn with {{subst:uw-test1}} if that is their first edit. If he adds nonsense characters to another article the second time, warn with {{subst:uw-test2}} and so on. Until he reaches a level 4 warning and vandalizes again, report him at WP:AIV.

Y
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?
Good faith edit. He may not know the purpose of signatures. Warn with {{subst:uw-test2}}. If he adds signatures to another article, warn with {{subst:uw-test3}} and so on.

Y
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?
Vandalism. If that is a good faith edit, he will add relevant and reliable source for that. Besides, I have seen IP users doing this a lot of times. Revert using Twinkle (VANDAL) button or rollback button (if you have). Warn using {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} for first time. If he adds those kind of comments to another article the second time, warn with {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} and so on. Until he reaches the level 4 warning and vandalizes again, report him at WP:AIV.

Y
A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
Good faith edit. This is an editing test. He may want to prove he can edit this article. Revert using AGF the first time, and warn with {{subst:uw-test1}} for first time. If he adds those kind of comments to another article the second time, warn with {{subst:uw-test2}} and so on.

Y
A user removes sources information from an article, with the summary 'this is wrong'. First time, and atfer that? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions?
For this, it rather depends. But I think that will be good faith edit. If he removes content without an explanation given, then that will be vandalism. The information he deleted may not be true, and the removal can still be understandable. Perhaps, he wants to help to improve the wiki but in a wrong way. Perhaps warn with {{subst:uw-delete1}} or {{subst:uw-wrongsummary}}. If that happens the second time, warn with {{subst:uw-delete2}} and so on. If he has a history of positive contributions, there will be only a few warnings on his talk page. But if he has a history of disruptive contributions, he will have a lot of warnings on his talk page.
The explanation of whether it was good faith or not is correct. {{uw-wrongsummary}} would not be appropriate in this case as I don't believe that it was "inaccurate or inappropriate". And {{uw-delete}} would not be appropriate because they stated why they removed it, and they left an explanatory (although not as much as you'd hope for) edit summary. I think in this case the only way to go about it, would be to treat it as a content dispute and either follow WP:Bold, revert discuss or let the edit stand and ask them about it on their talk page. If there was a history of positive contributions there would more likely be no warnings on the talk page, with this questions I meant what would you do differently if the user had a history of positive or disruptive contributions.

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.
{{subst:uw-delete2}}

Y
A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
{{subst:uw-attempt}}

Y
A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
I think it is {{subst:uw-efsummary}}.

Y
A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
{{subst:vandalism2}}

Y or a warning from the defamatory series.
A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
{{subst:uw-delete1}}

Y
A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
{{subst:uw-test1}}

Y
A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
{{subst:uw-vandalism1}}

Y
A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
{{subst:uw-biog2}}

Y However I would use {{subst:uw-blp1}}.
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
{{subst:uw-delete4im}}
They haven't yet been warned so it would be better no to jump straight to such as serious warning (I'd use a level 2 or 3 in the first instance).
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
Report him at WP:AIV straightaway. Use Twinkle to report him.

Y
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).
{{subst:uw-npa1}}, but if that problem persists, I may report him at WP:ANI for his personal attacks to me.
Given you have had a number of problems it would be better to do straight to an admin or ANI. Remember WP:DENY, plus you don't want to (or be seen to) provoke or worsen the situation.
A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
{{subst:uw-image1}}

Y

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-spam}}

Y
Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
{{db-g3}}

Y
Joe Nathan goes to [[]] and lives !
{{db-g10}}

This is not an attack page. {{db-a7}} and/or {{db-a1}} would be appropriate.
A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
{{db-g3}}

Y
Fuck Wiki!
{{db-attackorg}}

Whilst it probably could be deleted by G10, "Wiki" isn't really an organisation so {{db-g3}}.

What would you do in the following circumstance:

A user blanks a page they very recently created.
- Tag it with {{db-g7}} as he blanks the page he created, that will be taken as a deletion request.
  Y

After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
- Tag it again with {{db-g7)) and warn him with {{subst:uw-speedy1}}
  That is a reasonable course of action, however I would be more inclined to ask the user on their talk page what they would like done with the page rather than charging in with a deletion tag and warning.

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 username. Promotes a band. Report at WP:UAA.
It would be better to leave them a warning on their talk page rather than just hand over the job to an admin. However if they have already made promotional edits then reporting them would be the correct course of action.
Poopbubbles
Offensive username. Contains the word 'poop'. Report at WP:UAA.

Y
Brian's Bot
Misleading username. There is the word 'bot' in it. Report at WP:UAA.
You need to find out if it is actually a bot account first.
sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
Rather a confusing username, but not in violation of username policy. But this isn't what a construtive editor will do. Report at WP:RFCN.
It would be better to leave them a message on their talk page about the username.
Bobsysop
Misleading username. There is the word 'sysop', which meant system operator, in it. Report at WP:UAA.

Y
12:12, 23 June 2012
Misleading username. This is a timestamp. Report at WP:UAA.

Y
PMiller
Nothing wrong with this username unless he wants to impersonate someone else.

Y
OfficialJustinBieber
Promotional and misleading username. No username should have a 'Official' word in it. Besides, this promotes Justin Bieber. No username should promote a company, organization or a celebrity. Report at WP:UAA.

Y

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)?
No. Reverting vandalism is different from the WP:3RR rule.
Y But note, the vandalism needs to be obvious.
Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
WP:AIV. Using WP:Twinkle to report. Also, instructions on WP:GAIV.

Y Except you don't need to use Twinkle
Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
WP:LTA if the abuse is long-term or persistent. WP:ANI is also acceptable. Show the evidence of abuse done by the user.

Y
Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
WP:UAA. Instructions in WP:UAAI.

Y
Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
WP:RFCC. Show the evidence of the personal attacks made by the user. If it is persistent or very serious, report at WP:ANI.

ANI is the place to go, an RFC is used for longer term issues after an attempt has been made to resolve the issue.
Where and how should an edit war be reported?
WP:AN3. Show the history and some differences of edits of the page where the edit war is going on.

Y
Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
WP:BLPN. Show the differences of the edit of the page made by the violating the WP:BLP user.

Y

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.

1.[1] Warning - [1W]

2.[2] Warning - [2W]

3.[3] Warning - [3W]

This was not vandalism.

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

1.[4] Warning at [4W].

2.[5] Warning at [5W]. Since it is the first edit made by the IP user, I assume good faith.

Both reverts are made by using STiki.

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

[6] Y
[7] Y

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

[8] N It was a single IP who was blocked.
[9] Even though the admin didn't protect the page, I can see why you felt there was a content dispute for which protection was needed.

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

[10]

That article (Knwen fc) I actually tagged with CSD:A7.

Y

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

[11]
You should have warned and not reported. WP:UAA is for blatant violations only, and WP:UAAI states that you should wait until the user edits.

Final score

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage
1	25	22	25	88
2	12	10	15	83
3	9	6	10	67
4	8	6.5	10	81
5	7	6	10	86
6	16	12	30	75
TOTAL	77	62.5	100	80

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 80% and no issues came up during your 5 day monitoring period; well done.

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

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.