User:Mz7/CVUA/Bingobro

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 start`

Twinkle

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

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

@Mz7: Already enabled. Bingobro (Chat) 05:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Mz7 (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism

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

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

A good faith edit will be when an editor does a wrong but (Intended to help wikipedia) edit either due to the lack of understanding of policies or a simply a mistake.While vandalism is clearly a deliberate non constructive edit intended to harm wikipedia.

This is the right understanding. The goal is to evaluate the intention of the editor. Even if their edits are unhelpful, as long as they intend to help Wikipedia, they are not vandals, so they should not be treated as such. Mz7 (talk) 22:48, 10 October 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 edits are a lack of understanding of the way wikipedia works , copyright violations, editing tests by new users, incorrect wiki markup (I've come across a lot of it in airline fleet tables), grammatical errors (I just did one in the Vandalism section below) and good faith nominations of deletion of pages (articles/templates).

Ex-

Example 1 (Runway extension is still a work in progress however this user changed the length to the length of the extended runway).

Example 2 (The user added the frequency of the flights in the destination table).

@Bingobro: The links you've provided are permanent links to individual historical versions of articles. You can usually find this by clicking the dates and times listed in the page history. Do you think, however, you can switch the formatting of your URLs to provide diffs, which describe the differences between two historical versions of an article? These can be found by clicking the "prev" links in the page histories. Mz7 (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to add unencyclopedic content to wikipedia , removal of encyclopedic content or blanking of a page, or adding bad humor to a page and edits not according to WP:NPOV.

Example 1 (The airline destination list shows three airlines operating international flights however none do so not even through connections).

Example 2 (At that time Air Odisha wasn't operating to IXR it hadn't even announced plans of flying there and the editor added it as a chartered operator).

Example 3 (Even today, nearly two years after the edit Spicejet hasn't announce plans to fly to Bhavnagar and all info regarding Ventura Air connect except Surat is fake).

@Bingobro: These diffs are interesting to me because I'm not very familiar with the subject area of airport articles. Accordingly, I'd like to ask a follow-up question. In these diffs, how are you differentiating between vandalism and a good-faith mistake? In other words, how likely is it that the user who added the false information did so unwittingly rather than maliciously? Mz7 (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Well in the first one clearly the airport (at least at that time) didn't have capabilities of handling international flights and the airlines didn't operate those flights (can't be a mistake).

In the second one pretty much the same except this time its a domestic route. Air Odisha a tiny charter operator (recently became a scheduled carrier) simply didn't operate those flights no sources/refs. at that time IXR wasn't even mentioned as a destination on its website.

In the third one it says various cities will be connected by the airline (this part is good faith if the airline had announced to fly there but not announced the destinations) but, Spicejet didn't have any plans to fly to there no sources/refs/news etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bingobro (talk • contribs) 12:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: Alright, I'll trust you on this. Keep in mind as a general principle, however, that if you are ever in any doubt as to the intentions of the contributor, the default assumption should be that the user is contributing in good faith. Unless it's obvious, assume first that the contributor made a mistake, and if they keep making the same edit despite you warning them about it, then you can assume bad faith. I've posted your next assignment below. Mz7 (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and also as you said i have read WP:AGF. Bingobro (Chat) 07:43, 18 October 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

We warn users to let the know that what they are doing is not allowed.However the {PageName template is generally used for new users who are just making test edits and don't intend to harm the encyclopedia.

The goal is to educate vandals, informing them that their edits are unconstructive and pointing them to resources that might turn them into constructive contributors. {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} isn't just for test edits; it's typically the first warning to use when you come across any instance of vandalism. Mz7 (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be appropriate when a user does large scale and extreme vandalism to pages that to, in a short time period.

Right, it's typically done for particularly egregious, fast-paced, or widespread vandalism that needs to be stopped immediately. Mz7 (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a template should be substituted when we place it on a user talk page.It can be done by adding subst: after {{ (the opening braces).

Correct. Mz7 (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd first revert the changes made by the user then I would report the user to an administrator at WP:AIV and also leave a message on the users talk page to let him/her know that he/she has been reported to an administrator.

Reporting to WP:AIV is correct, but if a user has been persistently vandalizing or spamming, it is typically not necessary to notify the user on their talk page that they have been reported to WP:AIV. Mz7 (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: I've given some feedback on your responses above, and your next assignment is below. Mz7 (talk) 20:30, 19 October 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.

Improper humor in articles

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write.

For vandalism (level 3)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

Blanking pages (level 3)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.

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.

@Bingobro: It looks like you copied and pasted directly from the source code of each template message. For example, you went to Template:uw-vandalism3, clicked the "View source" button, then copied the source code of that message. The reason this is problematic is because we shouldn't be seeing template syntax like safesubst or {{{1|}}} in the final messages that we place on user talk pages. I understand that nowadays Twinkle is able to send messages for you without having to worry about templates, but I think it's important to have a basic understanding of how template substitution works. Do you think you could substitute the templates again, but this time use something like {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of copying from the source code? If you are confused or unsure what I mean, please don't hesitate to let me know, and I'd be happy to clarify. Mz7 (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am confused over here and need some clarifying.Thanks!Bingobro (Chat) 09:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: Right, so how did you make the warnings appear above? For example, for "Improper humor in articles", did you type {{subst:uw-joke1}} into the edit window? Mz7 (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Yes, I pasted the code from templates and I'd substitute them again.

@Bingobro: There we go, excellent. Sorry about the inconvenience there. I've posted your next assignment below. Mz7 (talk) 06:18, 21 October 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

This might take some time but, I'll most definitely complete it. Bingobro (Chat) 06:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Take as much time as you need. I realize this is a bit longer and more hands-on than the other assignments. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Mz7 (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff	Mz7's comments
1	[1]	-	Y
2	[2]	-	Y
3	[3]	-	Y
4	[4]	-	N This was actually a good-faith edit. The user was pointing out within the body of the article that the link in the article was pointing to the wrong page, an error corrected later by another editor.
5	[5]	Violates WP:NPOV	Y
6	[6]	Gave general note-1 for unexplained content removal.	Y You're correct that the user removed content without explaining why, but it seems, in the process of reverting, you also removed content of your own without explaining why.
7	[7]	Brand new user probably an editing test, doesn't mean to harm.	Y Good
8	[8]	Did a search everywhere for that name but nothing.	Y Great that you did a Google search beforehand.
9	[9]	Added that an Irish town is a North Korean settlement with Taliban as the government.	Y
10	[10]	This editor was even warned by ClueBot NG just minutes befor me for another edit.	Y
11	[11]	Gave 4-im (was already warned thrice before even by Clue Bot NG).	Y This is a very minor issue, but "4im" warnings mean that you are skipping levels 1, 2, and 3 entirely and issuing level 4 as the first and only warning a vandal receives. Since level 1, 2, and 3 warnings were already present on the talk page, a standard {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} would have been fine, rather than {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}}. Again, this is a very minor issue.
12	[12]	I used the [rollback] button and warned for test edit.	Y
13	[13]	Test edit	Y
14	[14] Talk page	IP Vandal,WP:AIV got reported by a bot due to edit conflict.	Y Regarding the three-revert rule, per WP:3RRNO if an edit is obviously vandalism (such that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism), you are exempt from the three-revert rule and are free to revert as many times as you need – as a counter-vandalism patroller, you have that privilege, so use it wisely . (Moreover, manually editing still counts as a "revert" in the eyes of the three-revert rule, so it wouldn't have mattered in the event that you were indeed edit warring.) I can see your attempt to edit WP:AIV here. Unfortunately, the edit wasn't submitted correctly because you edited the instructions for submitting a report. You need to copy the template given in the instructions to the bottom of the AIV page in order for it to appear correctly on the page. Alternatively, Twinkle can actually report to AIV for you – simply click the "ARV" button in the Twinkle menu when you're on a user talk page, and fill out the necessary details.
15	-	Thanks	I typically allow students an exception so that they only need to provide 1 AIV report.

~~@Mz7: I'm currently still finding any relevant WP:AIV's ~~or test edits~~. Bingobro (Chat) 13:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)~~

@Mz7: All done. Bingobro (Chat) 12:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: Good work. I've left some feedback for you above. Please read it carefully, and let me know if you have any questions. If you are ready to proceed, let me know, and I'll post your next assignment. Mz7 (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: I'm all set to go! and thanks for the feed back. Bingobro (Chat) 10:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: Excellent. The next bit is just a bit of reading material 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). Please let me know if you have questions about any of this material, or if you are ready to move on. Mz7 (talk) 01:54, 7 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.

@Mz7: All set to go ahead! Bingobro (Chat) 11:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: Next assignment posted below. Mz7 (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2017 (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?

We should not feed the trolls as that's what makes them stronger and they think theyr'e highly important and start giving more (personal attacks or vandalism etc..

The very thing that trolls and vandals seek is recognition. This is why we should avoid glorifying vandals and focus solely on dealing with their edits in a more-or-less mechanical manner. The focus should be always on building and maintaining the encyclopedia, not on the vandals. Mz7 (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

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

A good faith user would be calm and ask about it calmly while a troll may use abusive language or give real life threats.I got a troll once here for reverting their edits - [15] didn't know about WP:ANI then and anyways that user has stopped all editing.

@Bingobro:

It is true that a troll often uses abusive language, as your example clearly demonstrates. However, good-faith editors can also get angry or frustrated sometimes, especially when you reverse one of their good-faith changes. It's not uncommon for them to leave rude, even at times vitriolic criticism on your talk page. It's all part of being human, and it can be easy to mistake their frustration with malice. The difference can be subtle, but it's important to be able to differentiate between a user who wants to make you annoyed, versus a user who is annoyed at you.

I think the biggest key to figuring it out is examining the edits that are in question. If the edits were clearly vandalism (e.g. adding puerile/abusive language to an article), then you can be fairly sure that they're trolling you. However, if the edits were not clearly vandalism, my personal inclination is to extend the benefit of the doubt and try to see it from their point of view. Discuss the issue with them, explaining calmly and clearly why you reverted their edit. Generally, if the user is not a troll, most editors will respond to civil discussion with likewise civil discussion. Never, however, stoop a troll's level yourself by responding with your own personal attacks. It can be hard if you feel that you are being attacked.

Sorry, I kind of rambled. Please let me know if I am clear or if I need to clarify anything. Mz7 (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7:Yup I do understand and thanks for the feedback and the next assignment? Bingobro (Chat) 10:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: See below. Mz7 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

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?

A page should be semi-protected when there is significant amount of disruptive editing/vandalism by IP users, users who haven't yet been autoconfirmed/confirmed , or by sockpuppets of blocked users. Bingobro (Chat)

A thing to remember is that we try to keep editing as open as possible, so if blocking specific users or IPs can prevent most of the vandalism to a specific article, we'll do that before trying protection. Mz7 (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

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

It should be applied when there's persistent vandalism, violations of WP:BLP or copyrights but the article has low edit rates. Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

A page should be fully protected when lower levels of protection have failed and there has been a lot of disruptive editing or even vandalism by extended confirmed users. Bingobro (Chat)

By far the most common reason for why an encyclopedia article could be fully protected is to stop edit warring among extended confirmed users from taking place. With the advent of semi-protection and extended-confirmed protection, we see it less frequently used for vandalism, but it does happen. Mz7 (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

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

A page should be creation protected when its a bad page which has been deleted and re created multiple times.Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

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

A talk page should only be protected in severe cases of vandalism that to for a limited period of time. Bingobro (Chat)

Yes, only in egregious cases and only temporarily, as the talk page is where constructive users can suggest changes when they otherwise cannot edit the article directly. Mz7 (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

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

@Mz7: Could I get some help on this topic. Bingobro (Chat) 15:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: Anything specific you need help on? You should be able to learn all of the knowledge you need in order to answer the questions by reading the text of the protection policy. Mz7 (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Actually I meant is there any page feed or something that shows pages that are being vandalised.Bingobro (Chat) 03:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: Special:RecentChanges is always an option. There's a nifty beta feature that you can activate in your preferences called "New filters for edit review" that uses machine-learning to highlight edits that are likely to be vandalism. If you notice a particular page that is persistently the target of vandalism from multiple users, that's a good candidate to report to administrators for page protection. Mz7 (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thanks for the links but I see you didn't give any feedback on the assignment. Bingobro (Chat) 05:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: My apologies, done now. Mz7 (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Apologies? what for? real life is more important than all this . Bingobro (Chat) 05:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

For sure, for sure.

Cheers, Mz7 (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Protection

@Mz7: 2018 Asia Cup this was protected after my request [16]

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 if it contains utter rubbish, is a hoax or even promotions.As for the promotions my first article- Here had been previously created by another user and had been deleted for having only promotional content. Bingobro (Chat) 05:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Y – "Utter rubbish" is, of course, not a criterion for speedy deletion, but articles can be deleted if they are meet the criteria, which includes hoaxes and unambiguously promotional content. It is typically reserved for cases where information obviously needs to be removed from Wikipedia immediately. Mz7 (talk) 22:49, 12 November 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.

Collapsed discussion; click [show] to view

1) *[17] A film, has absolutely no content just 2 lines no sources/ref's either and only 1 category although the creator is WP:XCON.

You tagged the article for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A1. A1 means that an article lacks sufficient context to identify the subject, but in this case, we did have enough content to at least identify what the subject was: namely, an upcoming 2017 Malayalam-language Indian campus drama film written and directed by Joshy Thomas Pallickal. Mz7 (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

~~2) *[18] A TV show, once again no sources/ref's and a search for the topic found nothing. Bingobro (Chat) 06:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)~~

A11 needs to be obvious, and this wasn't obvious. Since the topic is foreign, did you try searching in a language other than English? Mz7 (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

3) *[19] A phone, no sources/ref's just 1 line of content and nothing else.

I highly recommend rereading carefully the criteria for speedy deletion, as it is clear that this article had enough context to at least identify what the subject is (hence A1 doesn't apply). Even a 1-line article can have enough context to identify the subject, and it doesn't matter at all whether an article has sources. The new pages patrol tutorial may also be helpful rereading. Mz7 (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Please correctly tag two additional pages for speedy deletion, including the diff and the specific criterion. (By specific criterion, I mean the name of the section. For example, "G3" or "A7".) Mz7 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I definitely failed badly here and has seriously put me off I'll tag other pages soon. I am familiar with reviewing new pages although CSD is a new thing.Bingobro (Chat) 01:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: That's okay; try not to feel too discouraged. Learn from your mistakes by identifying why the your tags above were incorrect. If you have any questions about them, please feel free to ask me. Mz7 (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

1.1) [20] A7 non notable web content.@Mz7: Please give some feedback before I proceed. Bingobro (Chat) 15:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: WP:CSD#A7 applies only to articles about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event. For web content, the article has to be specific content on the web itself, such as a website, a podcast, or a YouTube video. Internet Memeology is a general topic about the Internet, but it it isn't about specific content on the Internet. As a result, I don't think that speedy deletion criterion applies here. Mz7 (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

1.2)

@Mz7: I read through WP:CSD even then I'm no where close what should I do ; literally I feel doomed.Bingobro (Chat)

@Bingobro: I can see how WP:CSD can be a little intimidating, and I apologize if I haven't been giving you much to work with. Let's take it more slowly. I've collapsed our discussion of your previous attempts above. Below are a set of questions that are intended to help you get to know the speedy deletion criteria. They will present you with example scenarios, and your task will be to identify which criteria for speedy deletion, if any, apply in that scenario.

As a side note, I have temporarily revoked your new page reviewer right. This is not meant to discourage you; I simply feel that the right was probably granted prematurely, given your relative inexperience applying speedy deletion tags. Once you are stronger and more confident in your abilities, I will be happy to reassign you the right. If you have any questions about your new assignment, please don't hesitate to ask. Mz7 (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Scenario 1

A user with the username "BobSucks" creates an article called "John Smith" that contains solely the following text:

John Smith is the worst elementary school teacher on the planet.

Yes, I would speedy delete under G3 and also the username is a policy violation.

@Bingobro: As a hint, think about what the intent of a contributor with the username "BobSucks" who creates this article might be. Are they really here to contribute to the encyclopedia? Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Reanswered.Bingobro (Chat) 10:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Good. I intended for this to be a relatively simple example, so you might have just been overthinking it. It's vandalism, so G3 applies. G10 too, maybe. Mz7 (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Scenario 2

A user with the username "GoodTimesLLC" creates a user page with the following text:

'''Good Times LLC''' is an organization dedicated to helping your children get the highest quality education at an affordable price. Visit our website at goodtimes.info and contact us at 123-456-7890.

Yes, I would under G11 also the user name is violating the username policy.Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Scenario 3

A user creates an article titled "Edward Gordon" with the following text:

'''Edward Gordon''' (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 5,000 subscribers on YouTube.

First of all Wikipedia:Wikipedia doesn't care how many friends one has then, I would not speedy delete and rather re-write the article under WP:NPOV (only if the person is notable) .

Imagine you are faced with this article right now. How would you determine whether the person is notable? What if the person is not notable? Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd determine if its notable if the article has proper coverage and has reliable sources and here in this case with the given content the person is'int notable.

@Mz7: Reanswered.Bingobro (Chat) 10:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: Quick question. WP:CSD#A7 allows us to speedily delete articles about living people if they do not provide a credible claim of significance. In your view, does this article provide a credible claim of significance? Mz7 (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Nope. Bingobro (Chat)

@Bingobro: Right, in this case, I think this would probably fall under WP:CSD#A7 for speedy deletion. It is important to note that notability is different from credible claim of significance. If this difference is not clear to you, please ask. Mz7 (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Scenario 4

A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content:

Bazz Ward was a great roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz.

(Attribution: Ritchie333 came up with this scenario as a question to an old RfA candidate. Since my creativity sucks, I've borrowed his example here.)

@Mz7: Help required.

This is definitely a more challenging case. As a hint, try performing a web search with some keywords from the article, such as "Bazz Ward roadie Lemmy", to see if there might be more to the subject than meets the eye. Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

After doing a search if absolutely no content is found then the article can be deleted under G3. @Mz7: Reanswered.Bingobro (Chat) 10:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I intended for you to actually perform a Google search of the content, and you should have found that Bazz Ward and Lemmy were roadies for the English band The Nice. Even if you did not realize this, this probably isn't vandalism, i.e. a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia. In the worst case scenario, if we had to delete this article, I could see an argument for A7, but not G3. An alternative to deletion is a redirect to The Nice. Mz7 (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Scenario 5

First, wikipedia is a free to edit and read website.So, the creator of the article can not claim all rights reserved then the article must be properly re-written which does not violate any copyrights and is non promotional (only if the subject is notable) otherwise G11.

@Bingobro: Copyright violation is definitely the primary concern here. There is a speedy deletion criterion that specifically deals with unambiguous copyright infringement. What is the name of the criterion? Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Ah, yes the criterion is G12.

Mz7 (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Scenario 6

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.

Yes, I would under A2.

A2 does not apply to all articles written in foreign languages, only to those having essentially the same content as an article on another Wikimedia project. Instead, you should tag the article with {{Not English}} and list the page at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. I believe Twinkle has the ability to do this for you semi-automatically. Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Scenario 7

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.

Depends,if the subject was notable and in accordance with policies the blanking could possibly be a mistake and if the page contained nonsense then the user was making a test but didn't wan't it anymore and hence blanked the page and it should be deleted under G2.

We typically give contributors the benefit of the doubt here. If an article creator deliberately blanks an article that they exclusively wrote, we can safely assume that the creator wants the article deleted. The page would then be eligible for speedy deletion under G7 (Author requests deletion). Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Scenario 8

A new user creates a user page with nothing but the following content:

Jlakjrelekajroi3j192809jowejfldjoifu328ur3pieisgreat

I'd leave that as it is as long as it's in the userspace.

How would this scenario be different if the page was created in a different namespace?

The scenario would be different if the page was in the mainspace and if it was, speedy delete under G1.Bingobro (Chat) 09:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Good. G2 is another option that doesn't apply to the userspace. Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Patrolling user pages

One of the things that recently occurred is WP:ACTRIAL, which restricts the ability to create new articles only to autoconfirmed users. This has dramatically cut down on a lot of the junk that got submitted to Wikipedia before, so nowadays it's probably a bit more difficult to find pages in the mainspace that satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. However, non-autoconfirmed users can still create new pages in the draft namespace and the user namespace. If you navigate to Special:NewPagesFeed and click the "Set filters" button, you can switch the feed so that it lists new page creations in the "User" namespace, instead of the "Article" namespace (aka the mainspace).

I want you to patrol this log and look for user pages which appear to be either blatant vandalism (e.g. offensive text) or blatant advertising. Blatant vandalism satisfies section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, and blatant advertising satisfies section G11. I'm choosing this focus because the purpose of this course is precisely to train you on how to identify and respond to persistent vandals and spammers. However, just so that I can help you get it right, I want you to avoid tagging the page for speedy deletion directly for now, and just give me a link to the page here. I will then review your links and give feedback on whether tagging would be appropriate. (It's important to get this right so that we avoid biting newcomers.) Try to find at least 2 or 3 pages.

1) Highly promotional [21]

I can see how it might be promotional, and it may also meet WP:CSD#U5, though it's not the worst I've seen, and an alternative to deletion might be to move it to the draft space as a potential article.

2) Same her [22]

Good, this was already deleted by the time I got to it. Mz7 (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

3) Although a sandbox User has content in it relating to the user name and hence, highly ptomotional [23]

Good. I've deleted this page and blocked the user for having a promotional username (more information on usernames in the next part of the course). Mz7 (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

4) One more [24]

Mz7 (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thanks and hope for feedback soon! @Mz7: I understand the end bit but all scenarios above what do I have to do?

@Bingobro: Basically let me know what you would do when faced with the scenario. Would you tag the page for speedy deletion? If so, under what criteria? Mz7 (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: I did 6 of them and hope for feedback soon, also in Scenario 1 & 4 I need help. Thanks! Bingobro (Chat) 09:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: A few questions, please don't mind I was just wondering when would rollback come? and also when's the next assignment starting. Thanks! Bingobro (Chat) 15:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: I'm a bit busy in real life at the moment. I will try to provide feedback on your answers tomorrow, Friday at the latest. Mz7 (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Sure, take your time by the way here's one more promotional userpage 5) [25] Tagged under G11.

Excellent. I've left some feedback on your responses above. Please review them carefully. On a few questions, I've asked some follow-up questions for you to answer (denoted by the

symbol). All the beat, Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thanks , I'll answer them soon and perhaps after that we can move on to the next assignment?

I have answered the questions and hope for a feedback and next assignment soon.Thanks! Bingobro (Chat) 10:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Answered the questions. Bingobro (Chat) 09:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: I've left feedback on your latest answer. Also, did you ever get a chance to request page protection at WP:RFPP yet? Mz7 (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thanks for the feedback and yes I understand the difference.And I'll do RFPP soon.

@Bingobro: Okay, excellent. In the meantime, I've posted your next assignment below. Feel free to work on either that or RFPP when you have the time. Mz7 (talk) 20:47, 18 November 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).

Misleading although looks good to me if the user is'int claiming to be the actual Dwayne Johnson. Bingobro (Chat) 08:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Good. I like how you wait to take action until it is clear there's a problem (i.e. a misleading connection to a famous person). Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Promotional username of a company or organization.Report to WP:UAA especially if the user makes edits to their company's page. Although as mentioned here [26] I'd have a talk first. Bingobro (Chat)

Good. If the issue is blatant, it can typically be reported to WP:UAA immediately, especially if the user has already inserted promotional content to Wikipedia. However, it never hurts to talk first. Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Offensive I'd immediately report to WP:UAA.Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Promotional username would rather have a talk before reporting to WP:UAA Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: ? Please help here. Bingobro (Chat)

Nowadays, I believe an automated filter stops a user from creating a username like this. However, this would be a misleading username because it resembles one of Wikipedia's software functions, i.e. the code to create a signature. Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Misleading, looks like an IP if the user is doing good/valid/GF edits or even none I'd have a talk but if the user is only here to vandalize then I'd straight report to WP:UAA.Bingobro (Chat)

Nowadays, I believe an automated filter stops a user from creating a username like this. Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, absolutely offensive username, no talk needed with user I'll report straight to WP:UAA Bingobro (Chat) 08:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: Good work on this assignment. Next assignment below. Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 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'd consider it vandalism because by no way the statement is a GF edit. Bingobro (Chat)

I agree. Mz7 (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

Its breaching WP:BLP.

Mz7 (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

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

I'll use {{uw-vandalism2}} since its definitely vandalism . Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 08:39, 22 November 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 can't be blocked as per WP:3RRNO since its obvious vandalism. Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

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

In this case {{IPvandal}} should be used for reporting. Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Continuing vandalism, after warning 4 times . Bingobro (Chat) 05:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

"Vandalism after final warning" is the most typical language used. Mz7 (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz: Scenario 1 done.Bingobro (Chat) 05:45, 22 November 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?

It'll be considered a test edit because it is'int obvious vandalism and neither is it a good faith one.Bingobro (Chat)

Good. Mz7 (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Since its a new account I'd use {{uw-test1}}. Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

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

The Rollback (blue) button. Bingobro (Chat)

I would also add an edit summary to the effect of clarifying it is reverting a test edit. Mz7 (talk) 08:39, 22 November 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?

I'd first give a level 4 warning and if they don't stop then straight to WP:AIV. Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Yes, they sure can be blocked indefinitely . Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

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

{{vandal}} will be used here. Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

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

I'll say that the user is here only to vandalize. Bingobro (Chat)

"Vandalism-only account" or "vandalism after final warning" is the typical verbiage. Mz7 (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Scenario 2 done. Bingobro (Chat) 08:08, 22 November 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?

I'd use the [rollback] button of Twinkle. Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

{{Uw-spam1}} should be used here. Bingobro (Chat) 14:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Mz7 (talk) 21:27, 23 November 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?

Yes I would under G11 as its purely promotional and also G12 because it has copyrighted material. Bingobro (Chat) 14:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

G12 is the main one here, though I agree, if it comes from the company's website it is likely promotional. Mz7 (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

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

If the editor is editing only to articles related to their company, then I'll report to WP:UAA straight otherwise I'd have a talk with them telling to change their username and place {{Uw-username}} on their talk page. Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Yes, if they do not want to change their name and/or continue to add promotional content.I'd report because its most definitely a promotional username. Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: All done here and hope for a feed back. Also I have a slight request, please do not mind. Bingobro (Chat) 14:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Results

Your Score: 100%

@Bingobro: Excellent work! I've posted your next assignment below, which asks questions regarding the rollback user right. Mz7 (talk) 21:30, 23 November 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 button should be used to revert obvious vandalism,edits accidentally made by me, edits on my userpages, edits by a malfunctioning bot or edits by banned/blocked users.Also it should not be used to revert GF edits Bingobro (Chat)

Good. The key is that rollback must only be used for the most obvious cases where it is absolutely clear why you are reverting. This typically means the most obvious kinds of vandalism only. It should never be used for cases where you merely disagree with an edit that was otherwise submitted in good faith. Mz7 (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?

We should revert the edit with an edit summary "Self-revert accidental use of rollback". Bingobro (Chat)

@Bingobro: This is a correct answer. As a follow up question, what would you do if you accidentally used rollback to revert a good-faith edit that was unhelpful – in other words, you don't really want to revert the edit, but you still want to clarify that the use of rollback was a mistake. Mz7 (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: I'd revert the edit using twinkles blue rollback button and give Reverted accidental use of rollback, (used to revert GF) editas the summaryBingobro (Chat) 01:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro:

I just wanted to make you aware of the option to leave a "dummy edit", which is a very superficial change to an article that allows you to save a new edit summary, perhaps correcting for a mistaken use of rollback. See Help:Dummy edit for more information. Mz7 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

What should you do if you want to leave an edit summary with your rollback?

WP:STiki WP:HG and a few user scripts allow to give an explanatory edit summary for rollback.It can also be done manually by pasting the URL of the rollback link, it intothe browser's address bar, and append &summary= followed by the desired edit summary at the end of the URL. Bingobro (Chat) 16:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Good, but don't forget that you can always just use Twinkle's rollback button, which allows you to save an edit summary. The manual copy-pasting is a lot of effort for something Twinkle can do automatically for you. Mz7 (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: All done here. Bingobro (Chat) 16:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Just wondering if its time for me to request rollback.Bingobro (Chat) 13:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: Sure. As an administrator, I can grant the right to you now, or you can apply formally at WP:PERM/R. It's up to you; perhaps you might want a another administrator to get a second look. Let me know if you would like me to give it to you now. Mz7 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: I've posted your next assignment below. Mz7 (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2017 (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.

@Mz7: Today marks a week.Bingobro (Chat) 09:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: And so it is.

I'll do a final review of your contributions this week later today and, if you feel ready, get your final exam posted. Mz7 (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mz: Sure have a look but I'd request you to paste the final exam on Tuesday I'll ping you tomorrow night, as I'm a bit busy in real-life.Thanks! Bingobro (Chat) 10:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: If there aren't any problems then I'd like to proceed. Bingobro (Chat) 11:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: I've posted your final exam below. Good luck! Mz7 (talk) 22:54, 5 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).

A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article. What would you do if it was their first warning? What about after that.
It'd be a test edit and I'd give {{Uw-test1}} and if the user continues so would the warnings. Bingobro (Chat)
Y Good, it's good practice to assume that adding gibberish to articles are test edits. It could be the user trying to see if editing Wikipedia actually works. Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2019 (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?
Since there is no 100% accurate template like a hypothetical {{Uw-articlesig2}} I'd leave them a message and if they continue then I'd report the user. Bingobro (Chat)
Y Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2019 (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?
Depends, If its any article say my most edited page (an airport) I'd give {{uw-vandalism1}} or perhaps {{uw-vandalism2}} depending on the users background and If its about someone related to/or John Smith I'd tell the that they're violating WP:NPOV by adding {{Uw-npov1}} and go higher if required. Bingobro (Chat)
Y Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
The first time its a test edit and I'd give {{uw-test1}} and if they continue the warnings would go higher as well.Bingobro (Chat)
Y Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2019 (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?
Depends on the sources, if the sources were reliable and verified content and the contributor had a good contributing history.I'd have a talk with the editor over the matter and revert the edit edit the blue rollback button.If the contributor has a history of vandalising/disruptive edits then of course I'll start with {{uw-vandalism2}} and go higher if required. Bingobro (Chat) 13:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Y It's always a good instinct to check the sources when considering whether a removal of sourced content is legitimate. Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mz7:I'm sorry I was just a bit busy and didn't find time for the exam although I did contribute to articles. Bingobro (Chat) 13:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bingobro: That's okay. I just want to give you a heads up that for about the next four days I plan to be considerably less active on-wiki. Mz7 (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Part 2 (15%)

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

A user blanks Cheesecake.
I'd start up right with {{Uw-blank2}} since that article is already semi-protected and hence, is a target of IP vandals.Bingobro (Chat) 14:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Y Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
{{Uw-attempt2}} should do the job for the first time.Bingobro (Chat)
Y Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
{{tl:Uw-efsummary}}
Y Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
An anirport article and I'm in my comfort zone I'll go with {{Uw-vandalism2}} Bingobro (Chat)
Y Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
I'd go with {{Uw-delete1}}Bingobro (Chat)
Y Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
If its a brand new user or an IP then {{Uw-test1}} Bingobro (Chat)
Y Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
{{Uw-vandalism1}} Bingobro (Chat)
Y Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
I'l start with {{Uw-biog1}} and go higher if required.Bingobro (Chat)
Y Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
Report to WP:AIV as clearly WP:NOTHERE.Bingobro (Chat)
Y Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
Same as above.
Y Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2019 (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}}Bingobro (Chat)
Y Depends on the context, of course. A more personalized message or a direct report might work better. Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
{{uw-test1}} if the user's brand new. Bingobro (Chat)
Y Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Part 3 (10%)

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

Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
WP:G11 Bingobro (Chat)
Y Mz7 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
WP:A1 Bingobro (Chat)
Y Mz7 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
WP:A1 Bingobro (Chat)
Y Mz7 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
WP:G3 Bingobro (Chat)
Y A11 also works. Mz7 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Fuck Wiki!
WP:G3 Bingobro (Chat)
Y Mz7 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

What would you do in the following circumstance:

A user blanks a page they very recently created.
- I'll have to see if the subject's notable or not and if it's not and has no other editors then WP:G7 an author request deletion. Bingobro (Chat)

In general, even if the topic is notable, I will grant good-faith G7 requests for deletion as a courtesy. Mz7 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
- I'd give them a {{Uw-speedy1}} warning. Bingobro (Chat)

This is true for other speedy deletion criteria, but editors are allowed to remove G7 tags from their own articles. I would start a discussion with the user to determine exactly what they want to do with the article. Mz7 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mz7: I apologize for the extreme delay.But, now I'm back. Bingobro (Chat) 14:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bingobro: Okay excellent. Let me know when you are finished with all the questions, and I will grade it. Mz7 (talk) 01:27, 16 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).

TheMainStreetBand

Promotional but not that much to immediately block I'd have a chat with em first. Bingobro (Chat)

It all depends on their edits. If they are editing promotionally about a band called The Main Street Band, then you can report to WP:UAA immediately. Mz7 (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Poopbubbles

Offensive username,straight to WP:UAA. Bingobro (Chat)

This one's more benign, but if they're vandalizing, then a WP:UAA report is okay. If they're not editing at all, I would just leave it be. Mz7 (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Brian's Bot

Misleading username,straight to WP:UAA. Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

Disruptive username, as per what I have seen (not reported) at least 90% of such usernames have bben blocked. To WP:UAA. Bingobro (Chat)

It's a confusing username that hinders communication. Mz7 (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Bobsysop

Misleading username,straight to WP:UAA. Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

12:12, 23 June 2012

Misleading username, looks like a wiki clock that I used. To WP:UAA. Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

PMiller

No, this looks fine.Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

OfficialJustinBieber

Misleading username, straight to WP:UAA. Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mz7: Done here and once again sorry . Bingobro (Chat) 14:14, 14 January 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)?

If its obvious vandalism no, as per WP:3RRNO.If it isn't I'd probably keep out. Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?

I'd use Twinkle to report to WP:AIV. Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

Report to WP:ANI and before that notify them with {{subst:ANI-notice}} and it is done manually. Bingobro (Chat)

Note: Twinkle also supports the ANI notice via the Talkback feature. Mz7 (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?

Report to WP:UAA using Twinkle.Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Report to WP:ANI and before that notify them with {{subst:ANI-notice}} and it is done manually. Bingobro (Chat) I've been attacked before but I took it calmly and that particular user hasn't been doing much since.

Mz7 (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Where and how should an edit war be reported?

Report to WP:AN/EW manually but after notifying them with {{subst:an3-notice}}. Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Report to WP:BLP/NB manually.Bingobro (Chat)

Mz7 (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mz7: Done here too. Bingobro (Chat) 14:32, 14 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.

No.	Vandal diff.	Warning	Notes
1.	[27]	[28]	Had vandalised the same page before but went unnoticed.
2.	[29]	[30]	—
3.	[31]	[32]	Blanking and vandalism.

Y Mz7 (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

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

No.	GF diff.	Warning/Welcome	Notes
1.	[33]	[34]	Reverted AGF as the content looked good but no source/ref to verify it.
2.	AGF + experienced editor.	[35]	Reverted AGF as editor is experienced as wll as rollbacker- There was some confusion over the flight routes.

Y Mz7 (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

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

[36]
[37]

Y Mz7 (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

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

[38] -Successful.
[39] -Successful.

Y Mz7 (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

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

[40] Bingobro (Chat)

Y Mz7 (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Correctly report one username as a breach of policy.

[41] Bingobro (Chat)

Real names are allowed on Wikipedia, except where they mislead editors into thinking they are a different person than they are. Mz7 (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mz7: Hi, firstly my apologies for being such a lousy person.As you can see by my contributions I was much less active on wikipedia as compared to last year (2017) and I wasn't able to complete the CVUA exam due to some real life problems.I'm back now and would love to be your student again and hopefully if you have the time you could evaluate my answers.Thanks and once again I apologize. Bingobro (Chat) 09:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bingobro: Well, this is certainly a surprise! I'll take a look later today.

Mz7 (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thank a lot I really appreciate it. Bingobro (Chat) 09:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mz7: I know your'e busy but just a small reminder

.Bingobro (Chat) 15:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Completion

Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy, on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction and graduation from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. 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.

@Mz7: Thank you for your time on helping me! It was great being your student. Bingobro (Chat) 05:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)