User:ThePlatypusofDoom/CVUA/FriyMan

@FriyMan: Always remember to ping me when you're done. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Hello, and welcome! Here is where I will help you become a vandal fighter. When I post an assignment, please respond under the assignment (or in a table, if there is one). In some exercises I will ask you to provide "diffs". See Help:Diffs for how to do this.

Tools[edit]

Before we start, I wanted to show you some useful tools for counter-vandalism work which can be used by any editor. You can use all of these, none of these, or some of these. I don't mind, these links are just for your convenience. You may have already installed some of these in the past.

Twinkle[edit]

Twinkle is a very popular gadget which is helpful for a variety of tasks. To install it, go here and tick the box that says Twinkle. Then scroll down to the bottom of the page and click "save". When you refresh the page, a "TW" tab will be available on every page, next to the "More" tab. Scrolling over the TW tab will show a list of modules you can use on the particular page. Twinkle has a large number of useful modules, including but not limited to, one which can be used to warn users, one which can be used to request page protection, one which can be used to suggest a page is deleted, and many many more helpful features. It also adds a non-admin "rollback" feature on all diff pages. I highly suggest you enable Twinkle, as it's incredibly useful and poses no risk of harming your account.

@ThePlatypusofDoom:I am already using it for a long time. FriyMan ^talk 09:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Lupin's Anti-vandal tool[edit]

Lupin's Anti-vandal tool is extremely helpful for monitoring recent changes in real time. To install it, simply add the following to your common.js.
importScript('User:Lupin/recent2.js');
Refresh the page and you'll find 5 new links on your toolbar (on the left side of the page, underneath "interaction"). These links can be used to better monitor recent changes for possible vandalism.

I installed the tool and I am learning to use it now. FriyMan ^talk 09:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

IRC channels[edit]

IRC is an internet chat program. There are several channels on IRC that can be used to monitor vandalism. #cvn-wp-en ^connect is probably the most useful. Visit Wikipedia:IRC/Tutorial for information on how to connect to channels.

Tried it. I believe it is very useful. FriyMan ^talk 09:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Navigation Popups[edit]

Navigation popups allow you to hover over links and see a brief preview of the page being linked to. One feature of navigation popups is that when you're at recent changes and hover over "diff" links, you'll have the ability to revert the most recent edit, useful for undoing vandalism. To install navigation popups, go here and tick the box that says Navigation popups. Then scroll down to the bottom of the page and click "save". Refresh the page and navigation popups will be enabled.

Now that you've read these, reply below with which scripts you installed/what you signed up for. I don't mind how many you installed, or if you installed none, it's just so I know and can set tasks using those scripts. Also note that there are many more advanced scripts out there, but they'll only be available to you when you have more experience.

@FriyMan: Okay. Remember to ping me when you're done with an assignment. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's start with the basics, you already know them so you'll move on pretty fast.

Good faith and vandalism[edit]

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.

- @ThePlatypusofDoom: The goal of a good faith edit is to improve Wikipedia. Even though it is not always acceptable, it is still meant to help. Vandalism on the other hand is meant to troll, discourage and simply offend others. Vandals do not assume good faith and their edits are disruptive. FriyMan ^talk 20:34, 1 February 2017 (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 - [1], [2] and [3]. Y

Vandalism - [4], [5] and [6]. Y

@FriyMan: Also, can you link to the previous change as well, instead of just the one edit? It's a lot harder to see what the change is without what comes before it. (like [7] this) ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Warning and reporting[edit]

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 make them "slow down", so that they would understand that it is inappropriate to vandalise Wikipedia. N We warn users to tell them to stop editing, nothing about "slowing down"

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

- 4im warnings are appropriate in very severe cases of vandalism,Y or in cases, when the user does not recognise normal warnings. N If the user keeps vandalising, use lvl 4, not 4im. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it? -You should always substitute the warning template, so it doesn't change over time and confuse the author. You do it by placing the small subst

mark before the actual templates wiki markup.

What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again? -Easy. Just leave a message on the AIV talk.

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

{{subst:uw-vandalism1}} The most basic vandalism template. It is used to inform a vandal, that his edits are not appropriate. Y and it assumes good faith.
{{subst:uw-delete1}} This template is used on users, who are removing content and blanking pages without a reason to. Y and it assumes good faith
{{subst:uw-tdel1}} This warning is used, when users are removing maintenance templates from a page, when the problem, which maintenance templates were highlighting, is not resolved. Y and it assumes good faith.

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.

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 @ThePlatypusofDoom: I am done, but I could not find any users to report to AIV. I had an idea for people, who have warning lvl 4 or 4im to be added to a special category, so it would be easier to find them. FriyMan ^talk 07: 29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff	My comment
1	diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.128.211.7	Created the talk page. do not know how to provide a diff. Put the talk link instead
2	diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alleyne%27s_Academy&diff=763198406&oldid=763197768		Y That's fine, but a level 2 warning could also work.
3	diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:50.205.86.122&diff=763199363&oldid=749882387		Y
4	diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Connecticut&diff=763199358&oldid=763173690		This is the warning for the previous one... you don't need to put this here.
5	diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:96.4.180.35&diff=763199919&oldid=763199800		again, don't put the warning there, I just need to see the edit comparison.
6	diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazi_salute&diff=763199678&oldid=763133340	comment	N This isn't 4im worthy, try lvl 3.
7	diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Louis&diff=763201265&oldid=763138060		Y lvl 2 could aslo work here
8	diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2.51.68.136		New talk page, providing link to it again.
9	diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PartyNextDoor_discography&diff=763201849&oldid=763192591	He seems to be pretty experienced, weird for him to blank a section, without a summary.	I wouldn't use a template here and just ask on his talk page, but that works as well.
10	diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eurofan88&diff=763201954&oldid=760148998	comment
11	diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Telangana_State_Road_Transport_Corporation&diff=prev&oldid=763202738		Y
12	diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexy_Movie&diff=prev&oldid=763267727	Test edit number 1	Y
13	diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:106.79.51.216	Providing link to the talk, since no diff available.	?
14	diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Circle_(2017_film)&diff=763268437&oldid=763254396		Y
15	diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:107.77.168.28&diff=763270032&oldid=712530266	comment
16	diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nandrolone&diff=763270030&oldid=763236814	Test edit number 2	Y

@FriyMan: Next assignment is below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with trolls[edit]

Sometimes, disruptive users will try to harass and annoy you. In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, ignore them, and leave a note at WP:ANI. If they vandalize your user page or user talk page, revert them and ignore them. Please read WP:DENY and WP:RBI.

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

@ThePlatypusofDoom:We deny recognition to vandals, so that they do not make a big thing of it. Y We do it so they don't get attention, which is normally their main objective.

How can you tell between a good faith user asking about why you reverted their edit, or a troll trying to be disruptive?

Troll will most likely try to harass you, when you revert on of his edits. Y The troll won't be as kind, and act more malicious, yes.

@FriyMan: Your next assignment is below. Note that you have to put your signature after you ping someone, otherwise it won't register. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Shared IP tagging[edit]

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:").

You don't need to do anything here, just tell me when you have finished reading @ThePlatypusofDoom: Done FriyMan ^talk 19:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@FriyMan: The next assignment is below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion[edit]

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 (I am not an admin); 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). If you want to report manually, either place a CSD tag on the page, or report at WP:RFPP.

Protection[edit]

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

A page should be semi-protected, when it is a target of heavy ip user vandalism and content violations.

or vandalism from new users.

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

This protection is applied to infrequently edited articles with high levels of vandalism. Y It's also used if new users are vandalising, but there are also helpful contribs from IPs or new users as well.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Very important articles Y with high vandalism and edit warring. N Use extended confirmed protection before full in that case.

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

A page should be "salted" if it is not worthy to be created and can not be notable. N This leaves out the most vital part, it has to be recreated after it was deleted repeatedly.

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

An article's talk is normally protected simultaneously with the article itself. N No, it's for vandalism on talk pages. If an article is semi-protected, you should leave the talk page open, for semi-protected edit requests and things like that.

Correctly request the protection of one page; post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

- [8] N The request was declined.

@ThePlatypusofDoom: DoneFriyMan ^talk 08: 35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC); @FriyMan: Read over this assignment, as you got many questions wrong. Next assignment is below.

Speedy deletion[edit]

Please read WP:CSD.

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

-If the page meets with Criteria for Speedy deletion. (Ba-dum-tss) Y

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

[9] - This is one time I asked for page to be deleted. this happened before we started the course. Is this OK? @FriyMan: You need another diff. That CSD tag was good, though. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Done FriyMan ^talk 10:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

[10] @ThePlatypusofDoom: Another autobiography. (Just to make sure: [11]) FriyMan ^talk 15:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC) Y

@FriyMan:Both were deleted, so I assume that you tagged them correctly. Next assignment is below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Usernames[edit]

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 - I do not see any problems with this nickname. Y

LMedicalCentre - Report to WP:UAA and (most likely) CSD the user page. Y

ThePlatypusofD00m This user is impersonating you. Report to WP:UAA Y

JoeAtBurgerKing This username is OK, because even though it does refer to an organisation, it is not promotional. Y

~~~~ This username can cause some problems in wikipedia markup. It should be reported to WP:UAA

Y It also indicates an intent to disrupt.

172.295.64.27 This is a misleading username and should be reported to WP:UAA Y

Bieberisgay This username violates BLP policies and should also be reported to WP:UAA Y

JoeTheSysop This is a misleading username and should be reported to WP:UAA Y

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Done FriyMan ^talk 10:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC) @FriyMan: Good job! I've posted your next assignment below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Revision Deletion, Oversight, and Emergencies[edit]

Revision Deletion[edit]

Revision Deletion, commonly known as revdel, can be used to delete diffs. Revdel is used for copyright infringements, or serious cases of vandalism. See WP:Revdel and WP:CRD for more information.

Oversight[edit]

Oversight, also known as Suppression, is a powerful tool used by a very small number of users on Wikipedia. Oversight allows revisions to be removed from any means of usual access, even administrators can't see it. See WP:OS. Oversight is used in 4 cases: Removal of non-public personal information, Removal of potentially libelous information, either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel; or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision, Removal of copyright infringement, on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel, Hiding of blatant attack names on automated lists and logs, where this does not disrupt edit histories. (A blatant attack is one obviously intended to denigrate, threaten, libel, insult, or harass someone), or hiding vandalism when normal administrator measures are insufficient. Also note that Oversight is sometimes used in hiding the personal information of minors, if it makes them easily identifiable.

Emergencies[edit]

As you patrol, you may come across a threat of physical harm to oneself or others. If this happens, Report this to the Wikimedia Foundation immediately.. As the essay WP:911 says: "Notify the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) office staff of the apparent suicide note or claim or threat of violence as soon as it is posted. Foundation staff have been the key responders in prior incidents. Contact can be made by emailing emergency@wikimedia.org, which forwards to several trained staff members who handle these incidents and are available to respond to emergency incidents even outside of normal business hours. This is the preferred method for reporting threats of harm to the Wikimedia Foundation; calling the office or emailing other addresses will simply delay the report from reaching the appropriate staff in a timely fashion. The WMF will take care of locating the user and contacting authorities. The WMF will nearly always immediately acknowledge your email, so that you know they're working on it." Request oversight for any comments like this as well, or if you can't get it oversighted quickly, get an admin to revision delete it, and then email Oversight.

Someone outs another user on the other user's userpage. What do you do? Conatct an oversight, so he could suppress the diff. Y

Someone says that they want to kill themselves on their user page. What do you do? Contact Wikimedia immediatly. Y

A user puts a grossly offensive statement insulting the topic of an article, the article is a BLP. What do you do? Delete the diff. N You should contact an admin to revdel the diff.

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Done FriyMan ^talk 19:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@FriyMan: Next assignment is below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Progress[edit]

Here's a test so I can measure your progress in this area. After this, we'll move on to more advanced topics. The following scenarios each have multiple questions that are based on WP: VANDAL, WP:3RR, WP: REVERT, WP: BLOCK, WP: GAIV, WP: WARN, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, WP:911, WP:OS, WP:REVDEL and WP:UN. Good Luck!

Scenario 1[edit]

You encounter an IP disrupting the article on Homosexuality. They are adding extremely nasty homophobic slurs, and death threats.

Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why? Nobody in the right mind would ever post death threats assuming good faith. This is obviously vandalism. Y

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching? This edit is breaching policies WP:AGF and WP:PA N How is this violating AGF? Also, you should have mentioned WP:VAND.

Should you automatically report this, or should you give this person a warning? Why? This user should be warned with 4im warning. He should be reported to WP:AIV if he continues his edits. Y You could block them immediately, clearly WP:NOTHERE.

In what place(s) would you report this? Why? Is revision deletion or oversight needed? Why? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC) This user should be reported to WP:AIV if he continues editing like this. I believe that in this case it is good to contact an admin and revdel the edit. N This is a death threat aimed toward a person. Report this to the Wikimedia Foundation immediately, contact an oversighter as well. @FriyMan: Look over this. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Done FriyMan ^talk 07:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Scenario 2[edit]

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? I believe that it is a test edit and should be reverted assuming good faith. Y

What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page? {{subst:Uw-test1}} Y

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

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? This user shouldn't be reported to AIV, because he doesn't have lvl 4 or 4im warnings on his page. Y

If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.? Yes, because he "Is not here to build an encyclopedia". Y

Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}}? {{vandal}}, because this user is logged in. Y

What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor? This editor is disrupting articles and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Y and vandalism after final warning.

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Done FriyMan ^talk 19:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Good, next section is below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Scenario 3[edit]

A user is adding unsourced comments to a BLP, but you're pretty sure that this person is acting in good faith. Do you revert? Yes, I will revert assuming good faith, because WP:BLP clearly states that all BLP articles need to be referenced. Y

What would be an appropriate template to use in this situation? {{uw-biog1}} Y

This user now has a lvl 4 warning on their talk page. They add the comment again. Do you report? Yes, just because they did it after the final warning. Y

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Done FriyMan ^talk 19:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Scenario 4[edit]

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 paragraph copied from www.laptopsinc.com). 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 (agf, neutral, vandalism) would you use? AGF, because AGF criteria covers addition of promotional content.

If you do revert which warning template would you use? {{uw-advert1}} Y lvl 2 could also work

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 this article with G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. N The paragraph was copied from their website, so it would be a copyvio. The article would most likely be promotional, but it doesn't say that it is.

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 a {{Uw-coi-username}} template on the user's talk page. Y

Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate? I would report this User to UAA with this reason: "Violation of the username policy as a promotional username that implies shared use." Y

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Done FriyMan ^talk 21:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Scenario 5[edit]

You come across an account named "JohnIsAFag". You find that it's created the page "John Simmonds", which reads "John Simmonds is a guy born in 1991. He is still alive today, unfortunately, because he is an idiot. ahsjjdshhsd".

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 with G10 for speedy deletion. Y

Would you report this user to UAA? If so, What part of the username policy does the username violate? This username violates the policy by braking BLP policies for usernames. Y It's a blatant personal attack, yes.

The user puts the same insults in a different page 4 times, you have reverted 3 times already. Would another revert be a violation of WP:3RR? Those reverts are not a violation of the 3RR, because the edits are obvious vandalism Y

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Done FriyMan ^talk 21:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Results[edit]

Your score: 19/22

@FriyMan: See below, and you should look over those policies again. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Monitoring period[edit]

Congratulations! You have completed the first section of the anti-vandalism course, well done. Now that we've been through everything that you need to know as a vandal patroller, you will be given a 5 day monitoring period. During this time, you are free to revert vandalism (and edit Wikipedia) as you normally do; I will monitor your progress in anti-vandalism. If there are any issues, I will raise them with you and if you have any problems, you are free to ask me. After 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 my talk page. If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look. If you haven't heard from me and the monitoring period is over, ping me here or leave a message on my talk page to notify me. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Final Exam[edit]

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. @FriyMan: Hello? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC) GOOD LUCK!

Part 1[edit]

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.
I would place a "Test edit" template onto the user's talk. If he continues, I would consider placing "Vandalism" Templates onto his page, until he vandalises after the fourth warning. Then it is a straight message to 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?
I believe that this is clearly vandalsim and should eventually be reported to WP:AIV. 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?
First time I believe, this should be marked as test edit, but following times this can be considered vandalism. Y
A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
{{uw-test1}}, later vandalism templates and a trip to AIV. Y
A user removes sources 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?
I would at first ask why he did the edit assuming he assumed good faith (ha-ha), but later it is a {{uw-delete1}} and so on. Y

@ThePlatypusofDoom: I am done! Sorry, I just needed a WikiBreak after like 7 exams in 2 days. FriyMan ^talk 14:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC) @FriyMan: That's fine, everyone needs a break from WP eventually. Next section is below.

Part 2[edit]

Which templates warning would give an editor in the following scenarios. If you don't believe a template warning is appropriate outline the steps (for example what you would say) you would take instead.

A user blanks Cheesecake.
{{uw-delete4}} N Why lvl 4? Use lvl 2 instead.
A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
Lvl 1 vandalsim Y .5 points Use {{subst|uw-attempt2}} , but you could also potentially use {{uw-vandalism2}}
A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
{{uw-efsummary}} Y
A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
Lvl 3 vandalism Y
A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
lvl 2 delete Y or lvl 1
A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
lvl 1 test Y
A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
lvl 1 vandalism Y
A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
Check if this man was actually arrested. If not its a uw-biog1 N If he hasn't been arrested, you should warn at lvl 3 or 4im, as this is a major BLP violation.
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
uw-delete4im Y
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
AIV report 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).
If it is my userpage, I would report it to WP:ANI or {{uw-npa4}} Y Report to ANI, don't template.
A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
uw-test1 Y

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Done! FriyMan ^talk 07:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Part 3[edit]

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)!
G11 (I really want a new general criteria, that implies blatant violations of WP:NOTWEBHOST not only for user pages) Y
Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
G11 Y
Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
A7 Y
A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
A11 (obviously) Y or G3
Fuck Wiki!
G10 Y or G3.

What would you do in the following circumstance:

A user blanks a page they very recently created.
- Most likely the user wants to delete the page, so tag the page with a G7 criteria. Y

After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
- Maybe ask the editor what he intends to do with the page first, because I believe it is inappropriate to try to enforce a G7 CSD tag. It's like enforcing someone to go somewhere, without them even asking for it. I feel like this should be discussed more. Y

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Done! FriyMan ^talk 07:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@FriyMan: Okay, graded. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Part 4[edit]

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).

NikeShoes - WP:UAA and most likely U5 CSD the userage. Y
IWANTTOTROLLWIKI - disruptive user,WP:UAA , check the contribs, if vandalism, WP:AIV Y
Brian's Bot - misleading username (need to check if it actually is a bot), if not, WP:UAA Y
sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj Suspicious user, maybe disruptive. If disruptive, report to WP:AIV Y You could report to UAA as it might indicate an intent to disrupt.
Bobsysop Misleading username, should be reported to WP:UAA Y
SteveTheAdminSUCKS This is an offensive username, report to WP:UAA Y
Justin Stevens Clearly a BLP violation!!! Justin Stephens is a surely a very famous Cornish cricket player! Just kidding. There is most likely no problem with this username. It might just be editors real name. Y
OfficialJustinBieber Misleading, and probably the userpage consists of writing, like "Hello, I am Justin and I am officially gay." CSD G10 the page and report to WP:UAA. (There is a very slight chance, that the page is a promotion, but it is very unlikely) Y

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Done!!! FriyMan ^talk 19:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Part 5[edit]

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)?

Yes you can. Sadly. Y

Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?

WP:AIV, by using diffs for proof. Y

Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

WP:ANI using an explanation, Y maybe even ArbCom - Don't try ArbCom unless all other methods of dispute resolution have been attempted.

Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?

WP:UAA with an explanation. Y

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

WP:ANI, with an explanation. Y

Where and how should an edit war be reported?

WP:AN3RR (That sounds like a super edgy nickname) with an explanation and proof diffs. Y

Who should you contact for material needing revision deletion?

Admin! Like Samtar. Y I probably harass Samtar a bit too often on IRC with requests for admin work. :) ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC) @ThePlatypusofDoom: Done! FriyMan ^talk 19:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@FriyMan: Graded. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Part 6 - Theory in practice[edit]

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amazon_River&diff=prev&oldid=767729274 | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:194.168.32.49&diff=767729753&oldid=748334424 Y
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Colourful_Alexa27 (Ha-ha! This welcome template is is like a welcome and a uw-test1 at once!) Y

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodland_shoes&diff=767679769&oldid=767679324 Y

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=767829833&oldid=767817486 N

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Ta-daa! I am done!!! FriyMan ^talk 19:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Final score[edit]

41.5 / 44

Congratulations![edit]

You have passed the course. You can now put this template on your user page: {{User CVUA|graduate}} . You've done a fantastic job, and teaching you has been a great experience.

The template displays this:

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.

@FriyMan: Thanks for being a great student! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Thanks for being a great teacher! FriyMan ^talk 22:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)