User:Mz7/CVUA/CASSIOPEIA

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.

The first assignment

Good faith and vandalism

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

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

A good faith edits are those with good Intentions but due to the lack of understanding Wikipedia policy, inexperience editing or mistakes where edits are not suitable or unhelpful.

Vandalism are those edits with bad intentions where edits are non-constructive, contain profanity or unsourced wrong info edits which serve harm to Wikipedia.

Y Right. The key here is intention. As long as a user intends to help Wikipedia, no matter how disruptive their edits may be, they are still considered a "good faith" editor and should be dealt with differently from a vandal. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia. Just because an edit adds incorrect or unsourced information does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal; they key is their intention. Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 17 November 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] - future fight bout should not be recorded as per WP:MMABOX guidelines

Y I'm not familiar with this topic area, so I'll defer to your judgment. Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

[2] - Use Sherdog record as standard for fight result according to WP:MMABOX - editor might not aware of this guildline

Y Again, I'll defer to your judgment with respect to MMABOX. Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

[3] - Heading is not according to sentence case as per WP:MOS guidlelines

Y It's good that you left a user talk page message, but I can't help but feel that you could have been more concise. It's a little overwhelming for new editors to have to go through a wall of text when they get reverted for a simple mistake like this. I would just let them know, "Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you changed the capitalization of a section heading, and I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia's style guidelines recommend the use of sentence case. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on my talk page." Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

[4] - Changed past event name (intentional)

Y Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

[5] user changed "face" to "batty = slang for arse" (intentional)

Y Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

[6] - removed notability tag

N Removing a notability tag is not in itself vandalism, especially considering that this user has a history of constructive contributions. Perhaps they disagreed with the tag. Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: I've left some feedback above. Please read them carefully and let me know if you have any questions. If you're ready to move on, I will post your next assignment. Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Per our discussion on the talk page, your next assignment is below. Mz7 (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

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

Please answer the following questions

Why do we warn users?

We warm users to 1) informing users that their edits are inappropriate or unconstructive for Wikipedia policies, 2) to educate the users on what is "constructive editing" by pointing them to the appropriate Wikipedia page for their perusal 3) To deter users on repeating the same actions.

Y Good. The purpose is to educate the users, who might be editing for the first time and just seeing if they could actually edit Wikipedia. Deterrence comes with repeated acts, with stronger warnings leading up to a block. Mz7 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

A 4im warning is used to cease and desist the user when user does an excessive vandalism and/or continuous disruption in a short time frame.

Y Right, it's for cases of widespread and particularly egregious vandalism only. If it's less than egregious, use a lower warning level. Mz7 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Yes, a template should be substituted. It could be substituted by placing subst: after the {{ and before the text.

Y Mz7 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

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

When a user vandalizes after receiving a level 4 or level 4im warning, we should report and notify the Administrator intervention against vandalism of the user behaviour.

Y Mz7 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2017 (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.

Vandalism - level 2

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Y Mz7 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

No adhering to WP:NPV - level 4

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article.

Y Mz7 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Removing of speedy deletion templates - level 1

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.

Y Mz7 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Make sure you keep in mind that some edits that seem like vandalism can be test edits. This happens when a new user is experimenting and makes accidental unconstructive edits. Generally, these should be treated with good faith, especially if it is their first time, and warned gently. The following templates are used for test edits: {{subst:uw-test1}}, {{subst:uw-test2}} and {{subst:uw-test3}}.

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

CASSIOPEIA (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Great responses! There's nothing glaringly wrong about them. I've left a bit of feedback and posted your next assignment below. Mz7 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Finding and reverting vandalism

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	Mz7's Comments
1	[7]	Page blanking	Y
2	[8]	Unsourced content	Y Good. This was also a copyright violation of http://www.krishnagiri.tn.nic.in/profile.htm
3	[9]	Disruptive	Y I would've used {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} instead of {{subst:uw-disruptive2}}. The edit was fairly clearly vandalism.
4	[10]	Test edit	Y Probably a good faith test edit, good.
5	[11]	Test edit (unsourced)	Y
6	[12]	(AIV) I did a series of reverts 2 weeks ago. I didnt stated the correct wording in the level of warming as during that time I have yet to enroll in this program. Reported to Administrator intervention against vandalism and user was block for a week. See user talk page. User talk:185.23.143.207.	Y I can see your report here. Note that Twinkle can help you report if you click the "ARV" option in the Twinkle menu when looking at a user talk page.
7	[13]	Image - user replaced Mary Anning portrait with a poodle dog image - I have check the link provided in the internet [14].	Y
8	[15]	user:24.71.46.126 . 4im warning and reported to Administrator intervention against vandalism on A Star Wars Story page. Editor was warned by 3 different user and editor continued to edit disruptively in a short time frame. The user received 3 months banned from WP:AIV.	Y [16]
9	[17]	Editor has be warned by Bot twice prior my warning.	Y
10	[18]	Gaming the system but stating in the edit summary as Fixed grammar, Added links but actuality editor deleted the category section.	Y I actually blocked this user the next day from an WP:AIV report.
11	[19]	Test edit	Y
12	[20]	Advertising	I see it more as an unsourced good-faith edit than blatant advertising.
13	[21]	Blanking sub-section	Y OK. However, it's generally helpful regarding these "Controversy" sections to check whether the content you are restoring violates WP:BLP. In this case, I can see an argument for WP:BLPCRIME to remove the section.
14	[22]	Editor using Spanish language in English Wikipedia page	Y
15	[23]	NPOV	Looks more like vandalism to me than a POV edit.

@CASSIOPEIA: Great work! I've left some feedback above. Please read it carefully, and if you have any questions, please let me know. Let me know also if you are ready to move on. Mz7 (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2017 (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, as you know, is very useful. It provides three types of rollback functions (vandalism, normal and AGF) as well as an easy previous version restore function (for when there are a number of different editors vandalising in a row). Other functions include a full library of speedy deletion functions, and user warnings. It also has a function to propose and nominate pages for deletion, to request page protection to report users to WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:SPI, and other administrative noticeboards.

User creation log

In my early days of fighting vandalism on Wikipedia, one of the strategies I would use to find vandalism was to patrol the account creation log. This is located at Special:Log/newusers, and it logs every time a new user account is created on Wikipedia. You'll notice that new accounts with no contributions so far will have a red "contribs" links, whereas new accounts with some contributions will have blue "contribs" links. One great way not only to find vandalism, but welcome new users to Wikipedia is to check the blue contribs links that come in.

Rollback

See rollback, this user right introduces an easy rollback button (which with one click reverts an editor's contributions). I'll let you know when I think you're ready to apply for the rollback user right.

STiki

STiki is an application that you download to your computer, and it provides you with diffs which either it or User:ClueBot NG have scored on their possibility of being uncontructive, and you are given the option to revert it as vandalism, revert it assuming good faith, mark it as innocent, or abstain from making a judgment on the diff. In order to use STiki, you need one of the following: (1) the rollback permission, (2) at least 1000 article edits (in the article namespace, not talk/user pages), or (3) special permission via Wikipedia talk:STiki.

Huggle

Huggle is also an application you download to your computer which presents you diffs (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. The rollback permission is required to use Huggle.

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?

Pages should be semi protected when articles are regularly being vandalized with high rates of edits of disruptive and unconstructive edits especially on WP:BLP articles by (1) unregistered users who use IP address or (2) new users who yet to confirm (3) sockpuppets and (4) block users.

Y Mz7 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Circumstances are same as semi-protected, but the edit rate is low but persistence vandalism, no accord to WP:BLP policies and violate of copyrights.

Y Good, the key is the lower editing rate. If there's a high editing rate (many edits in a single day), then semi-protection would be better. Mz7 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

A temporary full protected is applied when disruptive/unconstructive edits, such as edit wars and content disputes, copyright violation and defamation of living people from extended confirmed editors, and an indefinite full protection would applied on controversial subject on disagreements among the editors.

Fully protection would only applied when other type of protections would not work.

Y Indefinite full protection is very rare. As a wiki, we should strike to open editing to the greatest extent reasonable given the disruption level. Mz7 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

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

A page is created protected when a bad article which has been deleted and recreated multiple times in the past and being created again.

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

A talk page should only be protected for a short period when it is severely vandalized.

Y Mz7 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

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

UFC 218 - semi protection . [24]

  Looks like the article was eventually semi-protected, but it looks like you submitted a request to edit a protected page, rather than a request to protect a page. Note that Twinkle has the ability to help request page protection for you. I believe it's the "RPP" option in the Twinkle dropdown when looking at an article. Mz7 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2017 (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?

A page should be speedy deleted when it meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion

1. utter incoherent text or gibberish
2. Test editing pages
3. Blatant hoaxes and vandalism
4. Recreate a page which was deleted from deletion discussion.
5. page that created by a block user.
6. Page requested to be deleted by author
7. Advertising and promotion page
8. Page created to intimate, harass or threaten/attack purposes
9. Copyright infrigement
10. No important of people/org/web content/club/event
11. No content

Y Mz7 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2017 (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.

1a. User talk:Taurus2017 - Block user created "Germany at major beauty pageants" page - Deleted as such can find the history page (diff). Is there a place the deleted page recorded somewhere...

Y Yep, it's recorded at the deletion log. Mz7 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

1b. [25] by User talk:Jaco IV - blocked user.

N WP:CSD#G5 does not apply to any article created a blocked user, only ones that were created by them while they were blocked, perhaps through the use of a sockpuppet account. In this case, the user was not blocked at all at the time they created the article (nor were they blocked at the time you tagged the page for deletion). Mz7 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

2. User talk:Ashik Uz Zaman Antu - Ashik Uz Zaman Antu page. Edit test page of self. Deleted as such can find the history page (diff).

Y [26] Mz7 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• @CASSIOPEIA: I've left feedback on your responses. Please review them carefully and let me know if you have any questions. Mz7 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: I've posted your next assignment below. Mz7 (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2017 (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).

DJohnson

It looks like a normal user name which might be his/her real name.

Action

I would take no action as it is acceptable under Wikipedia username guideline policies should his/her edits are constructive and not claiming to be someone famous/important that violate BLP polic

Y Good call. The key for me is that they are not claiming to be someone famous, such as Dwayne Johnson. As long as their edits look fine, I would take no action. Mz7 (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

LMedicalCentre

This looks like a organisation username of a medical centre.

Action

I would write to the user and info and guilde them about Wikipedia username policy and advise the user to change his/her name.

Y Mz7 (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Fuqudik

At the first glance it seems a normal username, but if it is voiced, it might sound offensive.

Action

The user might not come from English speaking nation and the spelling of the username might not look offensive to him/her, for such, I would write to the user to encourage him/her to change the username , and if he/she refuses, I will invite an open discussion with other users on WP:RFCN. Should the the result of the discussion finds Fuqudik username to be offensive and Fuqudik still insist not to change his/her user name then I will report the issue to WP:UAA.

Y I think you might be overly conservative here, which is fine, but sometimes that results in unnecessary time spent on an issue. The key thing that I look at is the nature of the edits that are coming from the user. If the user is contributing in good faith, then I would support your discussion-based approach. If the user is vandalizing, I would immediately report to UAA without warning. Mz7 (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

ColesStaff

This is a promotional company name for Coles.

Action

(a)I will write to the user and brief him/her about Wikipedia username policy and advise him/her to change the username should the user edits are constructive and not violate NPV. (b)If the user edits is aimed to advertise and promote Coles then I will report it to WP:UAA.

Y Good. Except for the most egregious cases, you should typically wait until a user begins editing before reporting to WP:UAA, as the user's edits will clarify their intentions. (Sometimes editors patrolling the account creation log will report usernames which have never edited to WP:UAA, and we typically decline those reports or move them to a "holding pen".) Mz7 (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

~~~~

Confusing username that represents Wikipedia signature sign off symbol.

Action

Report to WP:UAA

Y Nowadays, these types of usernames are automatically disallowed, so you won't stumble across them. Mz7 (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

172.295.64.27

Username looks similar to IP address

Action

Report to WP:UAA

Y Nowadays, these types of usernames are automatically disallowed, so you won't stumble across them. Mz7 (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Bieberisgay

This is an offensive username as it connotes Justin Bieber, a famous singer from Canada, is a homosexual in nature.

Action

Report to WP:UAA

Y Mz7 (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• @CASSIOPEIA: I've left feedback above. Good work on this section! Mz7 (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @CASSIOPEIA: Your next assignment is a progress test which I have pasted below. Mz7 (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2017 (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!

Scenario 1

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

• Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?
  • I would consider this a vandalism edit as it is unsourced/no reference and it is a personal opinion.
    • Y Well, it isn't a "personal opinion" – someone's sexual orientation is not really something you can have an opinion about. However, since it is clearly adding deliberately false information to a biographical article about a living person, this is definitely vandalism. Mz7 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?
  • The edit breaches WP:BLP on the ground of WP:NPOV and WP:BLPSOURCES.
    • Y WP:BLP for sure. However, like I said, it's not really adding a "personal opinion" more than it's simply adding false information. Mz7 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?
  • The appropriate warning template to be tagged on the IP's user talk page is uw-vandalism 1 if the user is new to Wikipedia an uw-vanalism 2 if the user has been editing for sometime.
    • Y Mz7 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2017 (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, I would not be subjected to the violation of WP:3RR rule as I reverted edits that constitutes vandalism under Wikipedia guidelinesWP:3RRNO.
    • Y Correct, obvious vandalism is exempt from 3RR. Mz7 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}}?
  • I would use tl|IPvandal template for reporting for the traceability of the IP address whether the it is a shared/school/org/gov account by checking with WP:WHOIS.
    • Y {{IPvandal}} is simply the template you use to report on AIV if you aren't doing it with Twinkle. Mz7 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
  • I would include (1) the vandalized page name Justin Bieber and (2) indicated the IP user has been warm 4 times (level 4) of vandalism on the Twinkle.
    • Y Mz7 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2017 (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?
  • I would not considered a vandalised edit but a test edit by user.
    • Y Mz7 (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?
  • (1) if the user is very new, I will use welcome template welcome-anon-test on Twinkle.
    (2) if the user has been performed some editing then I will use uw-test 1.
    • Y OK. As a matter of personal preference, I go for {{uw-test1}} in all cases because it's more concise. Mz7 (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?
  • I will use Rollback-AGF (Green) to indicate a good faith.
    • Y Good. Mz7 (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2017 (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?
  • As the initial warning is a test warning and I dont have the reason on second level 2 warning, as goes by level 3 warning as the last, (1) I would give level 4 warning and should the user vandalize after level 4 warning which indicate the they had and will have the intention to vandalize again then I will report the user to AIV. However, if the level 2 warning was a vandalised warning, then I will report to AIV after level 3 warning has issued as it is clear the user intention is to vandalize as he/she treats Wikipedia as if it is a U-tube channel as they could write anything they like instead to edit for contribution in Wikipedia in an encyclopedic manner.
    • Y OK. As an administrator myself who semi-regularly responds to WP:AIV reports, I can tell you that AIV frequently becomes backlogged with reports of users that are vandalism-only accounts, but haven't technically vandalized past a fourth warning. Generally, a block would be justifiable against these users, but I think as a general principle, AIV administrators would appreciate it if you would hold off until the user has clearly vandalized past a 4th warning, unless the user is editing rapidly, currently, and/or egregiously. Use your best judgment, consistent with this advice, especially if you plan to use Huggle in the future. This is just so that AIV admins can focus on the most urgent issues. Mz7 (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?
  • If the user ignore the warnings and continuing vandalizing, the user will be block indefinitely.
    • Y Vandalism-only accounts are typically blocked indefinitely, correct. Mz7 (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}}?
  • tl|vanda template will be used.
    • Y Mz7 (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
  • I would stated user is a vandal only account user.
    • Y Mz7 (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2017 (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?
  • ? @CASSIOPEIA: You seem to have skipped this question. Mz7 (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I would revert the edit using the rollback feature.
    • Y Mz7 (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• If you do revert which warning template would you use?
  • I would use uw-advert1 or uw-advert2 template.
    • Y Mz7 (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?
  • I would tag the article with CSD with (1) unambiguous advertising /promotion (G11) as well as (2) copyright infringement (G13).
    • Y Good. Mz7 (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?
  • I would use curator tool as such it will send an automatic notification to the user talk page regarding the tags.(I have yet to have a chance to tag G11 for new page so far so I wont know if user is inform by curator tool will specify info of uw-username and if it appears that it does not appear in user talk page then I will manually tag uw-username onto user talk page).
    • Y Yeah, it normally does it automatically. Twinkle can also tag CSDs and it will also automatically notify page creators. If it does not work for some reason, however, use {{subst:Db-spam-notice|PageName}} on the user talk page. Mz7 (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?
  • I would report to UAA as username is a promotional/company name which violate Wikipedia policy.
    • Y Mz7 (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• @CASSIOPEIA: Good work. I've posted your next assignment below. Mz7 (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Rollback

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

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

Rollback may be use when

(1) to revert obvious vandalism with reason for such action is absolutely clear where edit summary is not needed

(2) to revert edits on my user pages

(3) to revert edits made by banned user who defiance of their block.

(4) to revert widespread edits which

Rollback may NOT be used

(1)revert edits that you disagree with other users

(2) revert edits that need a summary edit stated for the reasoning of the reversion

• Y Yep, you just copied and pasted straight from the guideline there. The absolute key thing, however, is to use rollback only for obvious vandalism. A case when you need to revert widespread good-faith edits is very rare, and especially when you are just starting out, you should leave that for more experienced editors. In the overwhelming majority of cases you should never use rollback against good-faith edits. This is why we've been studying the distinction between good-faith and vandalism in depth. It's the difference between an appropriate use of rollback and an inappropriate one. If you abuse rollback, you can have the right revoked from you. Mz7 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?

Revert the edit manually when a revert edit is accidentally use of rollback and state the reason of the reversion of the accidental use of rollback.

• Y State in the edit summary of your manual revert that it was an accidental use of rollback. Mz7 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?

No, use standard Twinkle rollback if an edit summary is need to explain the reason of the reversion. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Y Mz7 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• @CASSIOPEIA: I've left feedback above. Please let me know if you have any questions. Mz7 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @CASSIOPEIA: Next thing below. Mz7 (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Monitoring period

Congratulations! You have completed the main 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.

@CASSIOPEIA: The 7-day monitoring period is well over at this point. I apologize for momentarily forgetting about this! I don't see any glaring issues, and I think we can move forward with the final exam, if you think you're ready. For some advice, if an editor is clearly here just to vandalize, it's typically not effective to tell them "welcome to Wikipedia", even with {{subst:Welcome-unconstructive}} – though I don't think this is a big deal. I would use {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} instead. When communicating with new editors, you can link to policy pages such as WP:BLP, but I recommend explaining the most important points of the policies themselves in your own words in addition to just linking them, since it can be intimidating to have someone tell you to read a lengthy policy page before editing. (This is one of the methods of the Teahouse.) Please let me know if you're ready to proceed with the exam, I'll post it. Mz7 (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thank you for taking the time to monitor my work on counter vandalism. Appreciate it. Do understand your comment above (1)to introduce/advise new editor on Wikipedia policies in bite pieces instead refer them to lots of links at once which I am guilty of doing that a few times in the past and (2) if editor's intention is to vandalize then give warning level 1 instead of {{subst:Welcome-unconstructive}}. I am ready to move on to take the exam (I wish myself good luck here :)). I am not sure if you celebrate Christmas, if you do, Merry Christmas and if not,then have a wonderful weekend.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Yep, thorough explanations are better than lots of links at once. I don't think it is necessarily considered problematic to use {{subst:Welcome-unconstructive}}, but in my view, {{uw-vandalism1}} is simply a better, more to-the-point message. Merry Christmas! Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Final exam posted below. Mz7 (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2017 (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).

1. A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article. What would you do if it was their first warning? What about after that.

   I would assume god faith for test edit if the user is new to Wikipedia and only had less then a few edits. If the user has been edit for some time then it would consider a vandalism edit. I will tag level 1 for the first warning and will proceed with level 2, 3 and 4 on subsequent warnings.

   Y Good – a lot of the time, gibberish added by a brand new user is probably someone who is testing the editing function out, perhaps asking, does this really edit the page? I tend to apply WP:AGF and warn the user as if this were the case, i.e. with {{uw-test1}}. Mz7 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

2. 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 will tag vandalism level 2 warning {{subt:uw-vandalism 2}}, and will proceed to increase the warning level, maybe include a short brief message to user to explain the reason behind the tag message, and report the user to AVI if all level warning has been issued.

   Y I think it's always good to leave a brief message as you suggest, just so that the warning is clear. The level 2 message is the first to use the word "vandalism", and I like to be cautious about using that word unless we really have evidence that the user is contributing in bad faith. Mz7 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

3. 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?

   If the article is about John Smith, then I will tag {{subst:Uw-npov1}} and may be included a short message with WP:NPOV info to inform the edit is no based on neutral point of view but opinion. If the article has not relationship to any John Smith person in it, then I will proceed to tag vandalism warning level message. Any subsequent same edit will proceed with increase of the warning level 2,3 ,4 until make a report to AVI.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

4. A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?

   For the first time, I would consider a test edit and would tag {{subst:Welcometest|Article}}, and proceed to tag vandalism level 2, 3, 4 there after if such edit continues.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

5. 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?

   In regardless whether the editor is a positive contributor or a disruptive contributor, since the content had source prior the removal, I would (1) verify the source against the content claimed (2) is the source directly support article (3) check the source reliability WP:SOURCE (3) check if the article is BLP and how does the content effect the person as such as victimization, accusation of crime and etc.

   If the source does directly support the content then I will revert the edit,by assuming good faith, and states "source supports content" in the summary edit. If such edit continue after, a revert will be made and a disruptive level 1 message will be tag and a discussion on talk page can be raised in hope to settle the dispute WP:DDE to avoid WP:3RR violation. However, if user continues to repeat his/her action without justifiable claim or refuse to engage in the talk page, then request a intervention from an admin from ANI

   Y I like that your first instinct is the verify the source against the content, and then check the source's reliability, BLP, etc. "Check the source first" is an instinct that you have that I suspect not a whole lot of counter-vandalism contributors have. I also like that you are wary of WP:3RR. My only bit of advice is that while {{uw-disruptive1}} may be convenient, I think it would be better to leave a more personalized message, saying, "I saw that you removed this content, but it was actually verified by this source, so I restored it. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page." Mz7 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Part 2 (15%)

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

1. A user blanks Cheesecake.

   {{subst:uw-blank1|Cheesecake}}.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

2. A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.

   {{subst:uw-attempt2|Derek Jeter}}

   Y Mz7 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

3. A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.

   {{subst:uw-efsummary|Denis Menchov}}

   Y Mz7 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

4. A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.

   {{subst:vandalism1|Atlanta Airport}} for new user and {{subst:vandalism2|Atlanta Airport}} for non new user

   Y Mz7 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

5. A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.

   (1) {{subst:delete1|David Newhan}} and revert the edit if the section content is cited with reliable source which directly support the claim. (2) (i)If the blanked section content is unsourced, and I am not familiar with or too technical for my understanding then I will let the edit stands. (ii) However, if I am familiar with the subject/event and could determined the section blanking is not justifiable then I will revert the edit and citing the claim with reliable source.

   Y Great answer. Generally when content is unsourced, I let the edit stand per WP:V, which allows any user to remove unsourced content because it is unsourced, and thereafter it cannot be restored without providing a citation. Mz7 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

   {{subst:uw-test1|Megan Fox}}

   Y Mz7 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

7. A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.

   (1){{subst:vandalism1|Great Britain}} if no Tim in the section content. (2) If there is a Tim in the section content, then tag {{subst:nvop1|Great Britain}}.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

8. A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.

   {{subst:uw-biog1|Tim Henman}}

   Y Mz7 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

9. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.

   {{subst:uw-vandalism4|Personal computer}} or {{subst:uw-vandalism4im|Personal computer}}

   Y Mz7 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

    report it to WP:AIV

    Y Mz7 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

11. 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).

    since problems above are not stated in details, I would tag ({{vandalism4}} for regular vandalized user.

    Y This is also generally considered a form of harassment, and feel free to contact an administrator about this issue if you feel it's necessary. Mz7 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

12. A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.

    ({{subst:uw-image1|Taoism}}

    Y Mz7 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Part 3 (10%)

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

1. Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!

   WP:G11 as advertising or promotion.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

   (1) WP:G2 as test page if the article is nothing do with Josh Marcus, (2) WP:A1 as no context if the article has no other content and nothing could be found to on the internet about Josh Marcus for it could not determined who Josh Marcus is.

   Y WP:A7 is another option. Mz7 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

3. Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !

   WP:A7as No indication of importance people for no full name is provided and cant do a web search of such person.

   Y WP:A1 is another option. Mz7 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

4. A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.

   WP:A11 as Obviously invented. I did a web search and can't find Smadoodle.

   Y WP:G3 is another option. Mz7 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

5. Fuck Wiki!

   WP:G3 as Pure vandalism.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

What would you do in the following circumstance:

• A user blanks a page they very recently created.
  • WP:G7 Author requests deletion - I would send a message to author to make sure he/she would like to delete the page (as the editor might not know how to request to perform such action]]. Should the editor did not reply in 24hrs then I would use WP:G7.
    • Y Generally, blanking in itself can be taken as a deletion request, so I would feel free to tag as G7 right away. Afterwards, if you want, you can send them a message letting them know you did so, so in the unlikely event that they blanked the article unwittingly, you can point them to where they can ask for undeletion. Mz7 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
  • I would tag {{subst:uw-speedy1}} and revert the blank page to the original content. I will send a message to the editor to question his/her intention of blanking the content should he/she would like to request for deletion of the page as the editor might not know how to request such action. If the editor intention is to delete the page then I will tag WP:G7 Author requests deletion.
    •   While it's true that editors normally cannot remove speedy deletion tags from articles that they created themselves, G7 is one of the circumstances where we generally allow editors to remove such tags. In this case, I would probably take the tag's removal as an indication that the user doesn't want the content deleted. I would consider instead moving the article to the user's userspace, or alternatively to the draft space, where they can work on it further if they desire to do so. Alternatively, I would consider reverting the user's action of blanking the page. In both cases, I would leave a note on the user's talk page to let them know that I did so and clarify their intentions, just as you suggested. Mz7 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 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).

1. TheMainStreetBand

Assume good faith and send a message to editor to ask him/her to change the username. If communication has reach no avail then report to WP:UAA for WP:ORGNAME - Promotional names.

Y The key here is to examine the user's edits. If they are clearly promoting a band called "The Main Street Band", you can feel free to report to WP:UAA immediately. Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Poopbubbles

Report to WP:UAA for WP:IU Inappropriate usernames

  Eh, this one isn't blatant, but if they are vandalizing at the same time, the a "vandalism-only account" would probably be justified. If they are editing constructively, I would discuss instead. Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Brian's Bot

Report to WP:UAA for WP:MISLEADNAME Misleading usernames for bot account in Wikipedia.

Y Don't forget to check their user page first so see if this isn't a legitimate bot account under the bot policy. Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

1. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

I have asked question before :). So I would wait and do no action unless the editor make vandalism edits or egregious descriptive edits then I will report it to WP:UAA.

Y Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Bobsysop

Report to WP:UAA for WP:MISLEADNAME Misleading usernames for it gives the impression of user have the right to give permission in Wikipedia such as an Administrator in Wikipedia.

Y Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

1. 12:12, 23 June 2012

Report to WP:UAA for it looks like an indication of "time".

Y Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

1. PMiller

No action will be taken as it look like a person name with initial of first name with last name 'Miller".

Y Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

1. OfficialJustinBieber

Report to WP:UAA - WP:ORGNAME for misleading username.

Y WP:MISLEADNAME probably applies better. "Justin Bieber" isn't an organization, but since he is famous, we'll probably block the account as a precaution against impersonation. If it really is Justin Bieber, we'll ask him to verify his identity through WP:OTRS. Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Part 5 (10%)

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

1. Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?

NO, reverting obvious vandalism doesn't violate WP:3RR guildlines.

Y The key is it must be obvious, indisputable vandalism. If there is any reasonable doubt, you should be more cautious. Mz7 (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?

Report to WP:AIV using Twinkle.

Y Mz7 (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

Report to WP:ANI via Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and notify that he/she on their talk page that the editor has been reported to ANI.

Y Mz7 (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?

Report to WP:UAA via Twinkle

Y Mz7 (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Report to WP:ANI via Twinkle and notify the editor on his/her talk page that he/she has been reported to ANI.

Y I think this was probably a typo on your part, but you need to report to WP:ANI manually. I don't think Twinkle has an option for you to do this semi-automatically. Twinkle does have the option of allowing you to send the notification – it's under the "TB" (talkback) option. Mz7 (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Where and how should an edit war be reported?

Report to WP:AN3 via Twinkle.

Y Mz7 (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Report to WP:BLPN by linking the "diff" showing the dispute and place {{BLP noticeboard}} on the talk page.

Y Mz7 (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Part 6 - Theory in practice (30%)

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

1. [27] - Robinson Technologies

   Y Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

2. [28] - DeLon

   N This seems to be more a good faith edit. The user explained in their edit summary that they are related to the subject, so it's probably a WP:COI issue that should be handled differently from vandalism. Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

3. [29] - Jupiter (mythology)

   Y Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

1. [30] & [31] -agf- unsourced and not yet announced the pair would head the event - see User talk:99.195.114.205.

   Y I think you used the wrong warning template. {{Uw-agf1}} is a warning for users for not assuming good faith; it's not a warning for other issues. Remember, it's always okay to write out a message by hand if none of the templates convey what you want to say. Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

2. [32] - Uriah Hall - agf - no future bout should be recorded under WP:MMABOX- see User talk:85.253.147.28.

   Y Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

1. user:2601:843:4100:1FAB:6861:38E7:14AC:56D2 vandalism on Marie Trintignant andSamuel Benchetrit after final warning given, resulting a 36 hr black.

   Y [33] Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

2. User:Bo11sb33p6969 vandalism on Iroquois Ridge High School [34] page after final warning, resulting ban from editing for indefinitely blocked by Wikipedia.

   Y [35] Good work. Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

1. Jeff Triplette - vandalism - see diff [36] - page is protected for 1 week.

   Y [37] Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

2. Leg - vandalism - see diff [38] - page is protected for 1 week.

   Y [39] Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

1. Ingrid Schram - CSD A7 [40]

   Y [41] Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

1. user:Neatcleaningservices - promotional username violation. see [42]. User has been blocked. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

   Y Nice! Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Final score

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage
1	5	5	25%	25%
2	12	12	15%	15%
3	8	7.5	10%	9.4%
4	8	8	10%	10%
5	7	7	10%	10%
6	18	16.5	30%	27.5%
TOTAL	58	56	100	97%

Completion

Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction! You have now graduated from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy and completed your final exam with 97%. Well done!

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

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.

@CASSIOPEIA: It's been a real pleasure to work with you over the past few weeks. I hope you gained something from this course, and as always, if you have any questions, you know where to find me. Best of luck, and thank you so much for your willingness to help Wikipedia in this role. Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Callanecc, who has graciously published his training methods on-wiki. As I thought his methods were of higher quality than anything I could achieve on myself, I used his materials for your training, with a few minor tweaks. The originals can be found at User:Callanecc/CVUA/Tasks. Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)