User:Hummerrocket/CVUA/Snidester

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`

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.

Alrighty, well, today I had alot of schoolwork so I couldn't be here anyway. A vandalism edit is when someone is trying to deliberately harm the integrity of Wikipedia, or they think they're being funny. A good faith edit, well, that means that their edits are not helpful, but they aren't deliberately trying to be unhelpful. That's one way to put it. I remember having a vandal who replaced all instances of the world "males" with "Men like my knob like corn on the cob". That's pretty obvious that its vandalism. I did once see someone a page from "professional hockey" to "hockey". Although that edit is not vandalism, that would obviously be unhelpful since tags like "professional" are used to distinguish it from things like junior hockey. Any edits that make substantial claims without providing a reliable source is another example of a good faith edit. Snidester (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Lol I also have some schoolwork that I'm slacking off, but you are right. The biggest difference is in the intentions of the editor - for what reason are they making that edit. You gave some good examples, too. Hummerrocket (talk) 20:27, 7 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 edit. That invite to the tea house was well deserved. Snidester (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained, unnecessary section removal Snidester (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Claims that a party is right wing without providing a reliable source. Snidester (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

An older edit I found but you did say I could link older edits. That is definitely not trying to be helpful and is just some kid who thinks they're funny. Snidester (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

When I said someone changed it to "Men like my knob", this is what I meant. Snidester (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

About a month ago the Minnesota Wild page was overrun by smug Avs fans. Snidester (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Good work on these questions. Hummerrocket (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Snidester: I've posted your next assignment below. (Also in the future if you want to notify me please ping me on this page instead of my talk page :) ) Hummerrocket (talk) 20:27, 7 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

Warning is generally done to discourage vandals from further vandalizing articles. Warnings can also be used to help out newer users who aren't familiar with Wikipedia policies. Snidester (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The goal is to educate the vandals, rather than to discourage them. We want to guide them into Wikipedia in the right direction.

Well that was what I was implying... To discourage them from further vandalizing articles, and instead make helpful contributions. Snidester (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It is the 5th and final level of warning, so it may be appropriate if a user contiously vandalizes articles. If it is continued, an AIAV report may be necessary. Snidester (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The 4im warning is actually used for extreme or lurid cases of vandalism, not as a 5th level warning. In thoses, cases, only a 4im warning is needed until they vandalize again, and then one can report to AIV. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah I see, I was a bit confused on it's use. Snidester (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

subst: is how you do it. It means that, even if there is a change to the template, the display on the page where it was subst'd won't be changed. Snidester (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

If they receive multiple warnings yet continue to vandalize articles, then it is apparent they are only on here for vandalism and should be reported to AIAV Snidester (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Y Hummerrocket (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC); @Hummerrocket:; @Snidester: Next assignment is below. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:17, 8 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.

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.

1. {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} It means your edit was unconstructive or vandalism. Thus, it has been reverted. Snidester (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

2. {{subst:Uw-npov1}} It means your edit does not seem to be taken from a neutral neutral point of view or seems to be adding personal commentary into the article. Thus, it has been reverted. Snidester (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

3. {{subst:Uw-error1}} It means your edit seems to be adding inaccurate information into an article, whether intentional or not. Thus, it has been reverted. Snidester (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket:

Next assignment is below. Take your time on this one. Hummerrocket (talk) 23:22, 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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=20_%28number%29&type=revision&diff=835947644&oldid=835947552	Test edit {{subst:uw-test1\|Article}}	Y
2	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friendship&type=revision&diff=835948612&oldid=835948541	Unexplained page blanking. Someone else warned him for me.	Y
3	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Hanke&type=revision&diff=835984649&oldid=835984527	Not to sure on this one, nevertheless, reverted. {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	Y This is for sure vandalism, but possibly with a different intent - to communicate with someone, although that seems unlikely.
4	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siren_(mythology)&diff=prev&oldid=838239990	The nature of this edit would lead me to believe this was not meant in good faith. {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}	Y
5	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alvin_Toffler&type=revision&diff=839019947&oldid=839019611	These were most likely test edits. {{subst:uw-test1\|Article}}	Y Likely test edits, although that last edit near the bottom makes me doubt if it's actually vandalism. It's good that you assumed good faith, though.
6	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Clemente%2C_California&type=revision&diff=839020722&oldid=839020713 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&type=revision&diff=839020891&oldid=839020863	Received multiple warnings for vandalism, so I reported him to AIAV. The revisions shown here are the AIAV report, and the edit of his I reverted.	Y
7	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Auguste_Fran%C3%A7ois-Marie_de_Colbert-Chabanais&type=revision&diff=839023677&oldid=839023547	Yet another serial blanker. {{subst:uw-delete3}}	Y
8	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1920%E2%80%9321_SK_Rapid_Wien_season&type=revision&diff=839023721&oldid=839023676	{{subst:uw-delete4}}	Y
9	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_black_rhinoceros&type=revision&diff=839024594&oldid=839024530	Adding deliberately inaccurate information in some weird kind of joke. {{subst:uw-error1}}	Y I like that you used this specific warning instead of the generic vandalism one. However, when doing specific warnings, try to include an edit summary that says "factually incorrect" just for good measure.
10	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sects_of_Sikhism&type=revision&diff=839026160&oldid=839026066	This users actions lead me to believe that he is attempting to assume ownership of this article. He was already reported to AIAV by another user, so they'll most likely take care of him soon.	Y
11	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sects_of_Sikhism&type=revision&diff=839026160&oldid=839026066 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&type=revision&diff=839028419&oldid=839027905	This users behavior leads me to believe that the previous user is attempting to evade the IP block. I reported him to AIAV	Y Good, that is considered sock puppetry which is NOT acceptable on Wikipedia.
12	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sport_in_Greece&type=revision&diff=839132135&oldid=839132096	Since this user is removing significant conftent from an article without explaining why, and was previously warned for unconstructive editing, I gave him a {{subst:uw-delete2}}	Y
13	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_of_Russia&type=revision&diff=839132772&oldid=839132745	Again, unexplained removal of significant content, {{subst:uw-delete2}}	Y
14	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chromebook&type=revision&diff=839133289&oldid=839133261	{{subst:uw-vandalism2}} Since I don't see any sign this edit was in good faith, and was instead deliberately unconstructive, I find this warning appropriate.	Y A NPOV-2 warning could have also worked.
15	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loudspeaker&type=revision&diff=839134140&oldid=839134027	The obvious intentions of this edit are to promote this guys Soundcloud, and he was previously warned by Cluebot, {{subst:uw-advert2}}	Y

@Hummerrocket: Well I've completed this assignment. I had to slack it off for a little while due to an excessive amount of schoolwork, but it's done now.

@Snidester: Excellent work on this assignment. I see no major concerns. Let me know if you have any questions or if you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Hummerrocket (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket: I can move on to the next assignment. And yes, Its apparent to me that guy was a sockpuppet. Sockpuppets will usually create multiple accounts and act like different people (unlike those with legitamate alternate accounts), or in the case of an IP block, they will often use a VPN or something like that, but sometimes, people who have made nothing but helpful contributions to Wikipedia can sometimes get blocked unintentionally as a result.

@Snidester: Yes, that is correct. You clearly have a good knowledge on the subject, which is 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) 21:09, 1 May 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. As you know, this user right introduces an easy rollback button (which with one click reverts an editor's contributions.

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) 21:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket: Ah I see, I finally learned the difference between Huggle and Twinkle. Since this assignment was literally reading, it wasn't that hard. Whats next?

@Snidester: Posted below. Hummerrocket (talk) 00:19, 2 May 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 recognition is an encouraging factor. Especially if we react in an angry manner, since that is exactly what trolls do. Their behavior is delibaretly disruptive (regardless of website), and the overall intention is to anger people and bring themselves attention. Snidester (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Right, this is why one must remain calm and avoid confronting the troll; by doing this, you feed them, which is counterintuitive to the solution. Hummerrocket (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Although a good faith editor might be annoyed you reverted their edit, and might still show their irritation, again, their motive determines the difference. A troll, as already mentioned, is deliberately trying to annoy people in order to get attention. It ultimately comes down to whether they are annoyed at you, or are trying to be annoying. Also, if they act calm, then I most definitely wouldn't say they're a troll. Snidester (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Correct. The big difference is between their intentions. Hummerrocket (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket:

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?

If a page is being bombarded with unconstructive edits or vandalism, by IP users or non-autoconfirmed accounts, then it should be Level 1 protected. Snidester (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

If a page is getting a mix of constructive and nonconstructive edits from unregistered or nonautoconfirmed users, then it should be protected this way. Snidester (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Y Almost. The only thing you are missing is the frequency of the edits. For pending changes, usually there are occasional edits of vandalism, but it's not edited frequently. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

If a page is being bombarded with unconstructive edits or vandalism, by autoconfirmed or even 30/500 autoconfirmed users (which isn't common, but it has happened), then it should be fully protected but it is also used to protected deceased users pages. Snidester (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Y Yep, and it's also used to resolve edit wars. This type of protection is extremely uncommon, though, so I doubt you'd have to request it too often. The Main Page is fully protected indefinitely, by the way. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")? Snidester (talk) 02: 56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

If the page is being created over and over again, despite being deleted by administrators many times and in general being unconstructive, then it should be salted. Snidester (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Y Hummerrocket (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected? Snidester (talk) 02: 56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

If a talk page is having it's messages edited without proper cause, or if the page is being vandlized, then it should be semi protected. Snidester (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Y This is very rare, though. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&type=revision&diff=841910751&oldid=841910506 Washington Capitals

Good. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:57, 20 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?

Speedy deletion, although you can discuss the deletion, an admin can bypass any deletion discussion and delete it. This is usually only done if the page is majorly disruptive to Wikipedia (such as spam or attack pages)., but it can also be used in order to clean up things that, although not majorly disruptive, really serve no purpose (like abandoned AFC submissions)

I'm sure you understand how it works given the two examples below, but a page isn't just speedily deleted if it's majorly disruptive to Wikipedia. WP:CSD also works if the page follows a narrow set of guidelines for deletion, which may not all be about disruption. For instance, pages with no credible importance or unambiguous copyright infringement also follow this. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:57, 20 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 literally mentioned a criteria that isn't majorly disruptive and tagged a page for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeske_Couriano This user is a Wikipedia admin, and the page is blank (A3). So it is not needed.

Hummerrocket (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Monika_Doblin Abandoned, unsubmitted draft, tagged for speedy deletion. G13.

Hummerrocket (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Snidester: Hello? Just checking in. Take your time. Hummerrocket (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket: Oh hello, yes I'm still here. So the problem of having to catch up on schoolwork was dealt with, and then bronchitis was waiting for me. It'll probably take some time to complete this assignment, so lets see how it goes.

@Snidester: Oh no, it is unfortunate to hear that! I hope you get better soon. That is the priority over this course. All the best, Hummerrocket (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket: Better now. As my ice skating teacher always said "take your time, no rush".

@Hummerrocket: Looks good.

@Snidester: Good work on this assignment. I hope you are better now. I've posted your next assignment below. Hummerrocket (talk) 14:57, 20 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 the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).

This username could easily be their real name, so unless it becomes clear they are trying to impersonate someone with "D" as their first initial and Johnson as their last name, then we should probably leave it alone. Consider leaving well enough alone. Snidester (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Good, it's better to often leave the user alone if there are no problems. However, if the user starts to claim they are Dwayne Johnson, you should report them as misleading. Hummerrocket (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This username is not allowed because it is a promotional username. If they have a promotional username AND engage in disruptive activity, such as promotional editing, they should be reported to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. If they are not engaging in disruptive editing, but have a promotional username, then it's generally best to invite them to change their username or make a new account. Snidester (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Good, it's always better to talk to the user and assume good faith. Hummerrocket (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This username is not allowed because it was clearly meant to be disruptive or offensive, and should be reported immediately. Snidester (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This would imply one of 2 things.

1. Another promotional username. 2. A shared account.

I would most likely advise them to make a new account or change their username. However, if it is blatantly a shared account, then I would advise them to make new accounts as shared usernames are prohibited. Snidester (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Although this username is not prohibited, this can cause issues, they may not appear correctly. Users are encouraged to have Latin characters in their usernames. Snidester (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The four marks are clearly representative of a signature, so it is prohibited, and would be a misleading username. You should report it immediately to WP:UAA. Hummerrocket (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This user is trying to make others think they are editing from an IP address. I would report it immediately. Snidester (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This user is trying to impersonate me. I would report it immediately. Snidester (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

And when I say report it immediately, I mean to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

@Hummerrocket:

@Snidester: Next assignment below. Hummerrocket (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

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!

@Hummerrocket:: The problem with some of these questions is... I don't have Twinkle.

@Snidester: You've never enabled Twinkle?? This whole time I had thought you used twinkle to warn users, but I see from your contributions that you manually pasted the user warnings. Before doing this progress test, I strongly encourage you to enable Twinkle by going to Preferences and then gadgets and to get familiar with its features. Then, I'd like you to post three diffs below (above where it says "Scenario 1") of you using Twinkle to warn users before doing the progress test. Also, let me know below how you would request protection of a page using Twinkle and how to tag articles for speedy deletion using Twinkle. The reason I am doing this is because this is a very useful tool and is essential. Hummerrocket (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket: The reason I haven't used Twinkle is because... I don't know where to find it at. And believing someone is using Twinkle when they aren't. Well, atleast you aren't one of those people who still think the Earth is shaped like a hockey puck thousands of years after that was disproved by simple observations.

@Hummerrocket: Nevermind, found it. I have familiarized myself well with its features. The only reason I remembered this is because of these questions, tbqh. So tell me how I do with the thing above Scenario 1, then Ill continue on to the next assignment.

1. In order to request page protection from Twinkle, you click on RPP. 2. In order to nominate a page, file, etc for speedy deletion, you click on CSD. 3. Warning example 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XxTonyDudexX . I warned him for unconstructive editing on the Toby Fox page. I gave him a level 2 warning because I looked at his edit history and I discovered he removed ClueBot's warning. 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:69.181.188.52 I was warning him about the Anilingus article. He was adding the term "eating ass" as another term. I considered it good faith. Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that is considered NSFW, especially if it is factual significant. Yeah I think the mere existence of that article is enough proof. However, he did not provide a reliable source (saying "its 2018" in your edit summary isn't a source), so I reverted it. 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:202.153.221.250 And lastly

@Snidester: Ok good, so you get it. You can move on below. Also it's my fault that I didn't check your contributions earlier to see if you are using Twinkle. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks good... Continuing. Snidester (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Scenario 1

You encounter an IP vandalising Justin Bieber by adding in statements that he is gay.

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

Vandalism, because it is deliberately adding false information to an article. I would consider it vandalism, because well as far as I know Justin Bieber isn't homosexual.That, or they're using gay as an insult (tho by now you'd think people would have stopped using it as an insult) Snidester (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

WP:BLP, again, it is adding deliberately false information to his article. Snidester (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

uw-vandalism Snidester (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

uw-biog1 could also work, but in this case of pure vandalism yours is better. Hummerrocket (talk) 00:30, 24 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, you cannot be blocked for the 3 revert rule if you are reverting a vandal, as mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Exemptions Snidester (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

In this case, that's right, but in cases where the BLP violation is more subtle, consider going to the BLP noticeboard. Hummerrocket (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

I would use {{IPvandal}}, because well it would be an IP doing the vandalism. Snidester (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

If a user continues to vandalize articles beyond 3, 4, or 4im warnings, they should be reported. In this scenario "Vandalized Justin Bieber article after level 3/4 warning). Snidester (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That could be the case if done manually. If using Twinkle, however, to revert vandalism, how would you report them and what given reason would you use? Hummerrocket (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh well then Vandalism after final (level 4 or 4im) warning given Snidester (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 03:19, 24 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?

That depends on how it is done. For example, replacing "This is a thing" with "This is a th1ng" would most likely be a test edit. However, I wouldn't say its a test edit if they replace an entire article with "Rm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIGh1bW1lcnJvY2tldCwgaWYgdGhleSB3ZXJlIHRvIHJlcGxhY2UgdGhlIGVudGlyZSBhcnRpY2xlIHdpdGggdGhpcw==" then I would say vandal. Snidester (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The latter scenario can still be considered a test edit, though. A test edit is done by a user to see if they can edit Wikipedia, and even adding that many letters can still technically be done to see the ability. If there was profanity or slurs, on the other hand, it would be clear vandalism. Hummerrocket (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

uw-test Snidester (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Especially level 1 for the first time. Hummerrocket (talk) 00:30, 24 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-AGF (good faith). Snidester (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This question is slightly subjective, but it's good that you are assuming good faith. Some users/admins may go blue or occasionally red (which is not assuming good faith at all). Hummerrocket (talk) 00:30, 24 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?

This question doesn't tell me what type of warning they have. Heres a scenario for you. This user receives a level 1 warning for test edits, then is given level 2 and 3 for vandalism. In that scenario I would report them to AIV. If they are test edit warnings however, then the user proceeds to make a vandal edit, then I would give them a level 4 vandalsm warning and if they continue then I would report them to AIV for vandalism beyond level 4 warning.

Regardless of the warning (which is likely to be limited to test and vandal), you should judge by the edits if they are AIV worthy. Test edits, like you said are worth a level 4 warning, while vandalism only accounts that have no intention of contributing constructively should be reported. Hummerrocket (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

If they ignore the warnings and continue to vandalize articles they will be blocked indef.

Hummerrocket (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Hummerrocket (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

"Actions indicate vandalism only account"

Hummerrocket (talk) 00:30, 24 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?

I would use the regular rollback option. Snidester (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

uw-advert Snidester (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

uw-spam also works. Hummerrocket (talk) 00:30, 24 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 it for speedy deletion for unambiguous advertising /promotion (G11). Snidester (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

G12 is also acceptable. Hummerrocket (talk) 00:30, 24 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?

{{subst:uw-uall}} I would put this here to let them know their username violates Wikipedia's username policy and let them know to change their name Snidester (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It's up to you, but if you see that the user has a promotional username and is making promotional edits, you are free to report them to WP:UAA without a warning. Use your best judgement. Hummerrocket (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

It violates Wikipedia policies as it is a promotional username. I would only report it to UAA if it is apparent they are only here to promote their company, or refuse to change their name. If they change their name but continue to make promotional edits, then they could use some AIV. Snidester (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hummerrocket (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket:

Results

Your Score: 94%.

@Snidester: Good work, just make sure you understand my comments. Next assignment is below.Hummerrocket (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Rollback

Congratulations now for the next step. The rollback user right, as you know, 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.

As stated on WP:Rollback, the rollback feature can be used for Reverting obvious vandalism, edits in your userspace, accidental edits you made, to revert edits by blocked users, or to revert widespread edits made by a misdguided editor or malfunctioning bot. Abusing the tool for things such as edit warring or reverting edits you just don't like can result in your privileges being revoked. Snidester (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Correct. I recommend to use Huggle if you aren't using it already, which is a program that can help you undo vandalism quickly. It requires the rollback right, which you have, and it's relatively straightforward to use, so you can read the tutorial for it. Hummerrocket (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket:

@Snidester: Read below. Hummerrocket (talk) 17:21, 24 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.

@Snidester: The monitoring period is over. Looking through your contributions, I see no specific issues; you clearly know what you are doing. Are you ready to move on to the final exam? Hummerrocket (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket: If you're curious to why I was gone for a few days, it's a long story. And sure, lets move on to the exam.

@Snidester: It's fine, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I've posted your final exam below. Take your time. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:12, 5 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.
For the first time I would consider it a test edit, especially if they only have a few edits. It can be considered vandalism if all they're doing is making "test" edits, or have been a contributor for a long time. Snidester (talk) 04:41, 19 June 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?
If the user has received an Articlesig warning, but continues to add their signature to articles, then I would use {{Uw-vandalism2}}, etc, and as always, if they continue to do it beyond {{Uw-vandalism4}} then report to WP:AIV Snidester (talk) 17:02, 6 June 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?
A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
I might use uw-test for the first 2 times, and then start using uw-vandalism for further test edits. Snidester (talk) 17:02, 6 June 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?

Part 2 (15%)

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

A user blanks Cheesecake.
Uw-blank1
A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
Uw-attempt2
A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
uw-efsummary
A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
Uw-vandalism1 or Uw-vandalism2
A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
Uw-delete1
A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
Uw-test1
A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
You mean my skating coach? Yeah I'd say he was great. He was british too. In seriousness, <nowiki>{{subst:vandalism1|Great Britain}}<, because well there isn't really a mention about a guy named Tim, let alone a section about it. Lets say someone adds "He is really good at hockey and he OWNS the Flyers! Go Pens Go!" to Sidney Crosby, or "Habs suck, Lets Go Maple Leafs!" to Montreal Canadiens That would be npov1, because they are adding personal commentary about the subject of the article. Randomly adding "Tim is great" to an article would be considered vandalism, but if someone did it to an article or section about somebody named Tim, npov. Snidester (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
Uw-biog1
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
I like to try and be specific about user warning templates, so I would use uw-delete4 or 4im and report to WP:AIV if it continues. Snidester (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
Report immediately to WP:AIV. Snidester (talk) 17:02, 6 June 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).
Uw-vandalism4im.
A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
uw-test Since I would assume that this is a test. Why else would they put that picture there? Uw-image1 also works however.

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)!
I would report it under G11 (unambigious advertising or promotion). Snidester (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
I looked up Smadoodle, and from that I can conclude the best option is A11 (obviously invented). Snidester (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Fuck Wiki!
G3 (Pure vandalism) Snidester (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What would you do in the following circumstance:

A user blanks a page they very recently created.

Tag for speedy deletion under G7

After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Snidester (talk) 18:41, 27 June 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

We could consider this name promotional if they are promoting this band. If they are making helpful or at the very least, non-promotional edits, then we can simply invite them to change their name or make a new account. Report to WP:UAA if they are obviously here to promote their band.

Poopbubbles

This one isn't really that blatant, I think this one is more worthy of a chat, unless it's a vandalism only account of course. Snidester (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Brian's Bot

This really depends. If it is clearly a legitimate bot, then I would ignore it. If it's a spambot or a human trying to trick people into thinking they're a bot, then it is clearly a violation. Snidester (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

The biggest problem I've have with this is that whoever owns this account most likely isn't gonna remember all of that. Snidester (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Bobsysop

Report to WP:UAA as this user is trying to mislead people into thinking they are an administrator. Snidester (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

12:12, 23 June 2012

This username is misleading because it is a date and time Snidester (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

PMiller

Ignore, as tis is most likely their real name. Snidester (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

OfficialJustinBieber

Report to WP:UAA for WP:MISLEADNAME (unless the user can prove that they are really Justin Bieber. but I think he's busy writing cringey songs) Snidester (talk) 03:57, 6 June 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)?

No, as said 1,000 times before, you are exempt from the 3 revert rule if you are reverting vandalism. However, if you are reverting subtle vandalism, then some editors may accuse you of edit warring and report you. WP:3RRNO

Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?

WP:AIV

Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

WP:LONG Speaking of which. David York. 700 socks. Yeah no thanks.

Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?

[[WP:UAA]

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

WP:ANI

Where and how should an edit war be reported?

WP:AN3

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

WP:BLPN

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Plains&diff=prev&oldid=848698164 It's just impossible in my mind that this was good faith. He was warned by another user, however.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_filter&diff=prev&oldid=848689542 I don't even know what he's saying. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2409:4060:2010:1788:372B:C65F:C04E:CE39&oldid=848689570
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Indonesia&diff=prev&oldid=848690402 I probably would have considered this tests if he wasn't warned for doing stuff like this before. I did not warn him because I thought he was simply confused.

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=Modern_flat_Earth_societies&diff=prev&oldid=848618458 I consider editing tests to be good faith. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:64.233.144.28&oldid=848618463
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Mexico&diff=prev&oldid=848473491 Andres is only president elect. I forgot to welcome him tho.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.167.62.53&oldid=848618624

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=848690453

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=859309134

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Envios_baratos I reported him because I found his username to be promotional, and he was spamming links to a company he was promoting. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AUsernames_for_administrator_attention&type=revision&diff=848463581&oldid=848463509

@Hummerrocket: Did I forget any questions? If you're allowed to feel free to grade what of my assignment is complete.

@Snidester: I think you're just missing a few questions. However, I am on vacation right now and am only able to make small edits like this one. I will be back home on the 8th and will grade your answers then. If you could just complete the few parts (such as Part 6 question 4) that would be great. Thanks, Hummerrocket (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hummerrocket: Ah I see. Well I'm currently working on a side project relating to lunar crater articles, I plan to get back onto the CVUA assignments in the next week or so.

@Hummerrocket: I'm going to sleep now (very late) but when I wake up I will get back to Anti-vandalism work.

Well, I didn't keep the promise of working on the project. You see, I adopted a Wikia community about something I've been following for a long time which has been targeted by vandals. Apparently a confused admin denied my AWB request (yes, I know it's not for anti-vandalism).