Wikipedia

User:The Original Bob/My CVUA

< User:The Original Bob

The Original Bob, this is your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page. Each student in the CVUA has a page where they complete assignments from their instructor. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your academy page has been specifically designed according to you. We'll tailor your training based on your interests and my capabilities. There are several anti-vandal tools out there but I only really use Lupin's anti-vandal tool. My approach to vandalism is to properly judge each edit, slam the offender as appropriate, and prevent further disruption to the wiki.

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. You can provide an external link or use Template:Diff. Either is fine. 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 and leave an edit summary 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.

Start

edit

Much of the editing for counter-vandalism is semi-automated because it is not only quicker but the work is often tedious. Automated tools haven't always been available and could fail, so we're going to start the old-fashioned way by manually removing vandalism or simply undoing vandals' edits.

Good faith and vandalism

edit

When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. It is important to recognize the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit because your response is based on that assessment. 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.
  • Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. If an edit appears to be purposely disruptive to Wikipedia then it can be taken in bad faith and labeled as vandalism

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism is normally fairly clear but if in doubt assume good faith and investigate the editors previous edits and engage them on their talk page to explain your concerns.

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. Explain why the edits qualified as they had.
Good faith
Vandalism

Warning and reporting

edit

We have a variety of types of warnings (for different offenses), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4, for increasing severity). WP:WARN provides all the different templates and WP:UWUL discusses how and why these warnings are implemented.

Please answer the following questions
Why do we warn users?

The purpose of user warnings is to guide good-faith testers and dissuade bad-faith vandals or editors engaging in disruptive editing.The Original Bob (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 Y Be sure to sign your responses, as I directed at the start. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

Level 4im – Only Warning – Assumes bad faith, very strong cease and desist, first and only warning. Generally used in the case of excessive or continuous disruption from a user or specific IP.The Original Bob (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 Y Can you illustrate an example? Chris Troutman (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
For example, if an editor or specific IP have repeatedly posted swear words, section blanking or abusing other editors. The Original Bob (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Let me give you two examples, so we're clear. I warned this IP just recently. They were vandalizing faster than warnings could keep up. I used the 4im because it's an "only warning." A single defamatory edit to a BLP can be reason enough for a 4im, with no prior warning. The Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident is evidence that what WMF fears most is being sued. The Articles for Creation WikiProject was created just to prevent that incident for occurring again. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?

Yes you should and you do it by placing the text subst: in front of the template name. The Original Bob (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 Y Chris Troutman (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalizes again?

If an editor continues to vandalize beyond a Level 4 warning or Level 4im warning, they should be reported to Administrator intervention against vandalism. An administrator will then review their edits and determine if a block is required.The Original Bob (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 Y Chris Troutman (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Please give examples (using {{tl|''name of template''}}) of three different warnings (not different levels of the same warning and excluding the test edit warnings), that you might need to use and explain what they are used for.
  • {{tl|''uw-advert1''}} Used to stop people using Wikipedia for promotional reasons. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted.The Original Bob (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 Y Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • {{tl|''uw-biog1''}} Used to stop edits concerning content related to BLP articles without a citation to a reliable source, The Original Bob (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 Y Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • {{tl|''uw-chat1''}} To stop Talk pages being used to discuss subjects irrelevant to the page.The Original Bob (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 Y For example, Talk:Fish is the talk page to discuss development of the Fish article. It's not a place to talk about fish. Sometimes articles about celebrities attract opinion comments from random people. Comments about the article having problems are fine. Sometimes you'll see drive-by comments like this exchange. You want to avoid refactoring talk pages and be sure you consider the situation when you hand out the "chat" warning template. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes edits that seem like vandalism can actually 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}}.

Special:RecentChanges is a good place to patrol for vandalism. This is what the Recent changes patrollers do.

Find and manually 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 using either an external link or {{Diff}}.
# Diff of your revert Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff My critique
1 [1] Test1 template used, asked to more specific in language used for WikipediaThe Original Bob (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)  Y Chris Troutman (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
2 [2] Final warning issued,latest edit in a series of vandalism over several years and several warnings issued) - final warning issuesThe Original Bob (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)  N Remember that IPs are not people! An IP address only represents where a computer connected to the internet is. The vandal edits done years ago aren't necessarily the same person. (They might be, but they might not be.) When giving warnings to IPs, the warnings level drops after a month of no activity. The ladder only goes up if there's a reasonable belief you're dealing with the same person. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay I didn't realise that was the case, sorry. The Original Bob (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

3 [3]‎ Couldn't find any news reports of his deathThe Original Bob (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)  Y Chris Troutman (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
4 [4] IP editor made several edits without citations, test1 warning issued at first, followed by an unsourced1The Original Bob (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)  N First, we're in the MANUAL REVERSION section. Do not use Twinkle until I teach you how. Furthermore, you screwed up and restored spelling errors in your haste to remove IP edits. Also, why did you issue two different warnings? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realise Twinkle wasn't part of a manual reversion. I'll make sure to hold off using it until you show me. I wasn't sure which warning to use and my browser opened two windows, should I have deleted the one I didn't need? The Original Bob (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if you ever make a mistake you can always revert yourself or clean-up as needed. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
5 [5] random insertion of foreign phraseThe Original Bob (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)  Y Stop using Twinkle. Also, why use the level 1 template? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I was unsure whether it was a typo so I assumed good faith and gave level 1 warning, what would have been the better option? The Original Bob (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a judgement call. Level 1 templates (please read one) intone that YOU might have made an error. That edit was definitely a test edit and not a positive contribution, so you can start at level 2. Start at level one if you prefer, but it's just going to take longer to get to level 4 so you can get this vandal blocked. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
6 [6] taken in good faith but needs citationThe Original Bob (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)  N First, there was already a citation at the end of the sentence. Did you check that? It looks like a dead link; so I researched. I found a URL that shows the IP edit was correct, so you restored an error. Let me give you a nickel's worth of free advice: don't just revert edits because the editor is an IP. Instead, look for obvious vandalism or blanking. You still need two reports to ANI so you ought to be able to find some prolific vandals out there. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry,I went looked at the citated URL but, because it went to search page, I assumed it was up to the person making the new edit to provide a valid citation. I've just realised I was logged onto Lupin's IP address only tool. I'll try and find some more obvious vandalism now. Can I just check, does my report in number 9 count and do I need to complete all 15 boxes? thanks, The Original Bob (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you need to complete the whole table. I'm waiting on you to finish this section before I assess it and start the next section. The reference was there before that edit, and was probably good when it was first posted but link rot happens. Please re-read the instructions at the top of the "Start" section. We are manually reverting per WP:UNDO. No Lupin's, no Twinkle, no Huggle, no rollback, etc. I will train you as the time comes. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
7 [7] vandlism1 template usedThe Original Bob (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)  Y Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
8 [8] added the word radical, assumed bad faithThe Original Bob (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)  Y Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
9 [9] After warning the user about promotional editing, I found them to have continued and ignored several other warnings, so I reported them to AdminThe Original Bob (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Where's the diff for your report to AIV? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I've changed the diff now, I had made the report in two edits, I submitted the IP and then added the report. The Original Bob (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 Y Chris Troutman (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
10 [10] Editor was making edits/reverting my reversions faster than I could keep up and ignored warnings from other editors. vandalism4im template left on talk page The Original Bob (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)  Y Chris Troutman (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
11 [11] Editor has repeatedly tried to add this phrase/section blank the article. They had ignored level 2 and 3 warnings. I issued level 4. The Original Bob (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)  Y Chris Troutman (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
12 [12] clearly a test edit used Test1 template  Y Chris Troutman (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
13 [13] unconstructive edit, level 2 warning issued  Y Chris Troutman (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
14 [14] another unconstructive edit, level 2 warning issued  Y Be careful with these. You were right to revert, in that "notable" residents, recipients, etc. have to either have to pass WP:BIO on their own. However, it's not vandalism as there was no ill intent (necessarily). I get people adding entries to Bronze Star all the time because Grandpa Jim got one for killing Nazis in France. They don't realize what our rule of "notability" is. I typically don't issue a warning and just comment in the edit summary that the entry is not notable and unreferenced. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
15 [15] After issuing level 4 warning, another editor sumitted the account for AIV before I had the chance, does this count or should I continue?  Y That'll do. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Tools

edit

Counter-vandalism is a time-intensive task. For this reason, a number of semi-automated tools like Twinkle have been created. 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. In addition to looking at Special:RecentChanges for potential vandalism, you might consider using Lupin's anti-vandalism tool. It helps you sort through all the good edits to identy just the problematic edits so you can revert them and warn the vandals.

Twinkle will be key for you because it doesn't require any other userrights (commonly called "hats") to use. Tools like Huggle and AWB require permission to use. Twinkle will enable you to rollback multiple vandal edits all in one click.

Rollback is one of the devolved userrrights from the admin role. Many of the "hats" users now have came about because the admin pool has been too small. For that reason, trusting users that haven't gone through the RfA process to become an admin is only a recent creation, and not everyone thought it was a good idea. Misusing tools could result in you losing use of those tools/userrights associated with them. This is one of the errors that will come up when users become candidates to become admins. I've seen tool misuse derail some candidates, as it indicates a lack of thought on the candidate's part. Five years from now the edits you make today could come back to haunt you.

 
Example diff showing both Twinkle (top line) and the userright rollback (third line)

As the picture demonstrates, the use of Twinkle is called "rollback" but isn't actually rollback. The coding allows that functionality. The bottom "rollback" button is the rollback "hat" you have to request. When using the Twinkle option, be careful when you select "vandal" as it makes your use of rollback a minor edit unworthy of an edit summary. Misuse of this could get you into trouble. Be sure you select one of the other two options if you're reverting test edits.

Most importantly, rollback should only ever be used for four reasons. Name three.
  • To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear  Y
  • To revert edits in your own user space  Y
  • To revert edits that you have made  Y

The Original Bob (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

From here on, you can use any of the tools you have at your disposal. Twinkle is easily the most useful tool (in my opinion) as it has so many applications. One of those applications is welcoming and shared IP tagging.

Shared IP tagging

edit

There are a number of IP user talk page templates which show helpful information to IP users and those wishing to warn or block them. There is a list of these templates

  • {{Shared IP}} - For general shared IP addresses.
  • {{ISP}} - A modified version specifically for use with ISP organizations. These will come into play if there's evidence the vandal is hiding behind a proxy.
  • {{Shared IP edu}} - A modified version specifically for use with educational institutions, like schools and colleges.
  • {{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. The other is for the host name (which is optional). Both of these can be found out from the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page, like "Traceroute" and "Geolocate".

Also, given that different people use the IP address, older messages are sometimes removed 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:

NOTE: All of the templates in this section are not substituted (so don't use "subst:").

I utilize the shared IP templates for two reasons: first, I like to know to whom I'm talking. Sometimes it helps to know if a slanted-POV edit is coming from a company related to the article you're looking at, or some middle school in Lexington, Kentucky. Second, I've found that many vandals start to shape up when they know that their IP is tracked. Online anonymity emboldens many vandals and taking some of that away changes their attitudes. Let me be clear, NEVER get involved in "outing" any user, ever. Wikipedia will ban you for something like that. The Shared IP template is as far as we ever go.

If an IP from PepsiCo changes the article about Pepsi, then knowing the home of that IP may also lead you to place {{Connected contributor}} on that article's talk page. Companies like controlling their public image and they sometimes use Wikipedia to accomplish that. Unhelpful bad faith edits are vandalism and you have to go after them. If you notice an IP belongs to a school, when you go to AIV ask for a School block to cover at least to the end of the semester.

Dealing with difficult users

edit

Vandals will never 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 vandalize your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. My user page has already been vandalized several times. If you're in this business it'll happen to you, too. Please read WP:DENY.

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?
True vandals usually suffer from chronic alienation and real or perceived powerlessness and seek recognition and infamy by interrupting and frustrating the Wikipedia project and community. Such users experience exceptional attention as empowerment, reward, and encouragement. Denying these users the satisfaction of recognition and infamy neutralizes common primary motivators for vandalism and disruption. The Original Bob (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)  Y
How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?
Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia. Ignorance is not trolling. Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling. By themselves, misguided nominations, votes, and proposed policy are not trolling. They are only trolling when they are motivated by a program of malice rather than ignorance or bias. This requires a judgment of the personal motivation for another's action. Such a judgment can never be made with certainty. This fact should always be kept in mind when one is tempted to label someone a troll.
When you try to decide if someone is a troll, strive to assume they are not. Explain errors politely and reasonably; point them towards policies, the manual of style and relevant past discussions. Do not conclude they are a troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others. Even in that case, it is likely better to remain silent and let others conclude the obvious instead of calling someone a troll and creating even more mayhem. It is better to humour a troll for too long than to drive away a sincere but misguided user.The Original Bob (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)  Y
I want to emphasize that warning templates are not supposed to be a shaming device. Per WP:OWNTALK, users can remove warning notices as they please. If you suspect shenanigans, take a look at the history tab. Slap on an appropriate warning and {{OW}} and leave it at that. Report to ANI, AIV, etc. as needed. If you get into a tit-for-tat battle on the talk page, admins responding to the mess may throw up their hands and block the both of you. Many times, all a troll wants to do is engage with you just for the fun of it. Deny the fun and the trolling stops. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion

edit

Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only an administrator can protect or delete pages; 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

edit

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
Semi-protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, especially when it occurs on biographies of living people who have had a recent high level of media interest.The Original Bob (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 Y "significant amount" can be defined as a couple times a day. If the rate of vandalism is slower than that, an admin may refuse since reversion can keep up. Some articles are frequent targets of vandalism so a months-long pattern may be enough to convince an admin to protect it. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 (PC1) protected?
Pending changes may be used to protect articles against:

persistent vandalism violations of the biographies of living persons policy copyright violations Pending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred. Like semi-protection, PC protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors (unregistered users) at a disadvantage. Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate, even if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Instead semi-protection should be considered. In addition, administrators may apply temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. As with other forms of protection, the time frame of the protection should be proportional to the problem. Indefinite PC protection should only be used in cases of severe long-term disruption. Only what is known as "Pending changes level 1" should be used, which is labeled "Require review for revisions from new and unregistered users". Pending changes level 2, or "Require review for revisions from everyone except Reviewers", should not be used at this time per WP:PC2012/RfC 1.The Original Bob (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

 Y OK, that's what WP:PC says. In your own words, when would you request PC1 instead of semi-protection. Also, if PC2 were available when would it be used? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
So for a PC1 protection, the page normally experiences low numbers of edits but is experiencing a sudden high volume of vandalism from IP address editors and new editor accounts. Whereas, semi-protection should be used when a frequently edited page has a lot of vandalism or edit warring occurring. PC2 would be used if a large amount of vandalism/edit warring on a low traffic page was coming from both IP editors/ new editors but also autoconfirmed editors.The Original Bob (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 Y I'd like to point out that some editors want PC2 to help control content battles. This is unusual because protection is meant to stop vandalism and prevent breaking features like templates. It's also good to remember that pending changes does allow IPs to contribute, albeit with review. Semi-protection does not. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
During content disputes, when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article, or during a "History only" review of a deleted page and to protect generic image namesThe Original Bob (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 Y Full protection stops all users except admins from editing. This happens on templates that are transcluded on many pages; it also happens in very controversial articles and situations under WP:OFFICE. You will likely never request full protection because locking down an article keeps it from being edited, which we avoid doing. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
This is useful for articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. Such protection is case-sensitive. A list of protected titles may be found at Special:Protectedtitles. Contributors wishing to re-create a salted title with more appropriate content should contact an administrator (look for one who was previously involved) or use the deletion review process.The Original Bob (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 Y Sometimes we get users trying to push a corporate article and they'll keep trying to re-create it. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
Talk pages are not usually protected, and are only semi-protected for a limited duration in the most severe cases of vandalism. User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users. Users whose talk pages are semi-protected should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users. A user's request to have his or her own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale to protect the page.The Original Bob (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 Y Chris Troutman (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
What are the potential problems of having a page covered under PC1? How does this compare to the problems of full protection?
PC1: Pending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in content disputes. Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate, even if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Instead semi-protection should be considered.

Administrators may apply temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption

Full Protection : When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. There may be difficulties establishing a clearly uncontentious version of the page.

As with pending changes protection, full protection shouldn't be a preemptive measure or be used to further an administrators argument in a genuine content war. The Original Bob (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

 N Answer in your own words. Copying from the doctrinal source doesn't convince me you understand. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
For PC1, it requires an editor with reviewer rights to approve edits from IP addresses/new editors so there could be a back log of approvals required.Issues could then arise from conflicting edits. It might also be possible that an article has suddenly gained a lot of media exposure and so will become a high traffic page permanently. If this happens, then semi-protection would be needed in future.
For full protection issues, if indefinite protection is put in place, it means no-one can edit the page which is the opposite to Wikipedia's ethos. Also, the administrator needs to be able to revert the page back to an uncontentious version but this might be hard to do if there is a long history of edit warring. Or, if the administrator has taken part in these edits, they purposely or accidentally protect a version which projects their argument rather than a neutral one.The Original Bob (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 Y Each protection decision has to be balanced with accessibility. When you request protection, you'll have to make a case for decreasing that accessibility. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

edit

Please read WP:AFD and WP:CSD. Since this course is focused on counter-vandalism, you need only consider if a page (because of a bad-faith editor) has to be speedy deleted. Sometimes speedy deletion is inappropriate and you should instead nominate the article for deletion.

In your own words, under what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?
A page should be speedy deleted if, after a general consensus is reached among several editors, the article breaches one of the speedy deletion criteria which includes articles of nonsense, test pages, blatant vandalism/hoaxes, recreating previously deleted pages, pages made by banned or blocked users, if the original author requests a deletion in good faith, the page's info relies on a non-existent page, the page is meant to threaten or intimidate the subject without any other purpose, its clearly been created for advertising purposes (i.e. company pages which rank highly in search engines, it infringes on copyright.The Original Bob (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 N You don't seek general consensus if an article breaches criteria. There is general consensus about what the criteria are. If you find a page that meets that criteria, you can nominate for speedy deletion without any further discussion. An admin will review and either delete the article or will contact you on your talk page to let you know why the article won't be speedy deleted. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, should I try this question again?The Original Bob (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
No. I just want you to understand you don't have to get a consensus for CSD, unlike AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
When is speedy deletion not the best measure?
Speedy deletion is not the best measure when:

- editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user. Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. Tags however are not intended as permanent solution; they are intended to warn the readers and to allow interested editors to easily locate and fix the problems.

Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists.

Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect.

Articles which have potential, but which do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the Wikipedia:Drafts namespace, where they may continue to be collaboratively edited before either "graduating" to mainspace or ultimately being deleted.

Some articles do not belong on Wikipedia, but fit one of the Wikimedia sister projects.

Deletion should not be used for archiving a page. The developers have indicated that the deleted pages can be cleared or removed from the database at any time.The Original Bob (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

 N This is copied out of WP:DP. Try again, in your own words. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Generally, if the article can be improved and meet Wikipedia's guidelines through editing then it shouldn't be deleted. For example, if the article is okay but too short, adding a stub tag will allow people to come along later and improve it.
Similarly, if the article is too short but it's unlikely that more content can be added, it could be merged with a larger existing article to keep the information available on Wikipedia.
The content of an article might be unsuitable for Wikipedia but the title itself might be used to redirect someone to an appropriate existing page.
An article could also be put into incubation so that different editors can work together to improve it to the point it is ready Wikipedia.The Original Bob (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 Y If you participate in AfD discussions, many of these options might be floated by keep !voters citing WP:BEFORE. WP:USERFY is an option, as is moving it to draft namespace. (The article incubator project no longer exists.) However, if an article that can be improved hasn't been improved in months, it can't simply stay as-is. Fixes have to happen before the discussion concludes. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2014 (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.
 Y And the link to ABC News provides only one sentecne, citing someone else's tweet. That's not enough reliable sourcing for a BLP. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 Y Take your pick! It's totally unreferenced. WP:TONE, WP:NOTWEBHOST, etc. The creator, Altr Communications is a PR firm, so I reported them to UAA, which we'll cover next. When you find a weed don't just trim the leaves, rip the whole damn thing out by the roots. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Usernames

edit

Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users 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. Remember that usernames that imply a group account are prohibited. Also be on the look-out for names that seem to indicate some connection to public relations. Many editors on Wikipedia are businesses promoting various commercial interests. With a little research you might find a connection between an article and the editor.
  • 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 particular attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.

Describe what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).
DJohnson
This could be an account name using a real name or impersonating a real person. It might be worth checking what pages they edit to see if there is a WP:COI issue with the editor
 N Well if your user name was johnsmith you could be using your real name or impersonating any of a bunch of real persons, too. That doesn't mean the username itself is an issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Blanchbrassband
Suggests more than one username and might be used for promotional/COI edits Y
Sukhdeep.055
Subtle attempt at creating an offensive username Y
Παράδειγμα
While it isn't against Wikipedia rules to have non-latin characters in the editor name, they should be encouraged to use them in their signature for navigation purposes.
 Y In situations like these, be careful exactly how you encourage them. Often when users with names like these are nominated to become admins, this is a common complaint. However, for a regular editor this isn't considered a big problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Dickwad115
Offensive editor name Y
Thefutonshop
A promotional account name which might also suggest more than one user Y
~~~~
This would cause issues with the signature and suggests affiliation with Wikipedia
 Y I don't see how this suggests an affiliation with Wikipedia, but it is disallowed. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
172.295.64.27
This username has been created to look like an IP address and comes under the misleading names category Y
WhatamIdoing
Not sure if this fits into a category, but it might cause confusion in signatures on Talk pages etc.
 N Some users like choosing names that can be confusing. That, however, doesn't automatically mean they are violating the criteria. I think you've falsely assumed all of these have some problem with them and you went looking for the problem. Certainly, I picked some ok names and some that might confuse you to test your judgement. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Bieberisgay
Clearly an offensive account which attacks Justin Bieber. Y
SuperEditBot
Another misleading editor name which suggests it is some sort of bot/script with Wikipedia Y
78.26
This comes under misleading names as it would be confusing as part of the Wikipedia signature
 N As you can see User:78.26 has been around for awhile with no need from the community to force a change of the username. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The real Barbara Schwarz
This sounds like either a real person or somebody impersonating a real person. Again, would be worth checking if they edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Schwartz_(tennis) to see if there is a COI issue
 Y Please read WP:REALNAME. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Jesus hates FAGS!!
Offensive username created to troll/provoke other editors on Wikipedia Y
Call me LORDiNFAMOUS
This appears to be impersonating a real person who died recently,Lord Infamous this may be a trolling account. If the person was still alive, the user should make it clear they were unaffiliated with the real person.The Original Bob (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 N I don't see how this could be connoted to be a real person, and the name is fine. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Progress test

edit

At this stage, you've completed the initial block of training. This progress test will evaluate your readiness to move on to the next step, which is observation of your counter-vandalism activity without assignments from me. If you have any questions after taking this test, now's the time to ask.

The following scenarios each have questions that are based on WP: VANDAL, WP:EW, WP:3RR, WP: REVERT, WP: BLOCK, WP: GAIV, WP: WARN, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, and WP:UN. Good Luck!

Scenario 1

edit

You see a new account called "LaptopsInc" which has created a new page called "Laptops Inc" (which only contains the words "Laptops Inc" and a 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?
Yes the edit should be reverted , I would use a good faith edit initially. Y
  • If you do revert which warning template would you use?
I would use the advert2 template Y
  • 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 tag it for speedy deletion as it classifies as 'Unambiguous advertising or promotion' Y
  • Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?
I would leave the Uw-coi-username|Article|Additional text template and would make it clear that, if they continue to edit without applying to change their username first, I will report them to admin to have them blocked. the user account must have been used in the last couple of weeks. Y
  • Would you report the user to UAA? If so, what reason(s) does it violate?
Yes as it breaks both rules of usernames regarding blatant promotion and wider Wikipedia rules about WP:COI Y

The Original Bob (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Scenario 2

edit

An IP adds the word "test" and then removes them, on three different articles.

  • Are these edits vandalism?
Although they are prohibited, test edits are treated differently from vandalism. Y
  • What action do you take on the IP's talk page?
I would warn the IP editor using the uw-test user warning template, or welcome them to Wikipedia and refer them to sandbox on their talk page.  Y
  • The IP has been issued warnings a couple weeks ago but removed them. How does this influence you?
IP addresses are not always static,so I would have to be certain looking at at the edits that they are the same person i.e. if the edits were on the same page or the vandalism was the same wording etc.  Y
  • The IP commits more such edits and has received a level 4 warning. If this IP vandalizes again, what action would you take and based on what circumstances?
I would report it to WP:RVAN with a brief description of why the IP warrants being blocked. Y
  • The IP is blocked for 3 days; on the fourth day the IP puts "test" on another article. What action would you take in light of everything else?
I would use the 4im vandalism template as it is clearly the same editor vandlising. Again, I would report to WP:RVAN and explain that the IP had only just been unblocked for the same behaviour. Y

The Original Bob (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Scenario 3

edit
  • An editor removes an unsourced paragraph from an article with no edit summary.
I would restore the paragraph and issue a Uw-delete1 warning. Y
  • The same editor removes a sourced paragraph from the same article with no edit summary.
I would revert the edit and issue the editor with level 2 delete warning template.  Y
  • The same editor removes other paragraphs with the edit summary "this information is false!!"
I would issue a level 3 delete template but also put a note suggesting the editor corrects the information with relevant citations. Y
  • Another editor has started reverting these removals, with the edit summary "it is true".
I would ask the editor to be fully explain why the edits should be reverted in the summary, so that the other editor can see how they fit into Wikipedia's guidelines i.e. of neutrality, notability etc. Y
  • If this pattern continues, what's the most appropriate thing for you to do?
I would ask them to discuss the issue on the articles talk page to try and reach a consensus. If one or both of the users carry on edit warring I would request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard. Y

The Original Bob (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Scenario 4

edit
  • You revert an edit (vandalism) and discover this IP has vandalized a dozen other articles in the past six months, but only three others in the past month. The other edits were reverted by other editors but no warnings have ever been issued.
The warnings for IP users drops after a month so I wouldn't be concerned with any edits prior to that. If no warnings were given for the more recent edits, then I would need to assume good faith and issue a level1 or 2 vandalism template warning and only if it is reasonable to assume the IP is the same person editing. If it is particularly severe vandalism then I use 4im. Y
  • How would this situation be different if the vandal were a registered user that still doesn't have a talk page?
A registered user without a talk page would mean that it hasn't been autoconfirmed/invited to join the Teahouse etc. so probably hasn't made 10 edits yet. Registered users can be treated as one person so its persistent vandalism warnings doesn't drop after a month. Depending on how severe the vandalism was, I would issue warnings accordingly. Y

Other questions

edit
  • An editor blanks a BLP for a second time after having already received a 4im warning. Where should you report them?
WP:RVAN Y
  • Two editors edit and revert each other on an article. Where does this need to be reported and why?
Wikipedia:AN/EW Wikipedia is based on the principle of being an unbiaised common resource of knowledge. When editors take part in edit warring, it means they are trying to further their own opinions and so it needs independent administrators to intervene  Y
  • You find an odd situation that is neither vandalism nor edit warring. Describe some options available to you.
I could try and find a solution on Wikipedia's guidelines, take it to the talk page, discuss it with other editors or raise the topic at the Teahouse - or ask you.The Original Bob (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 Y Be advised that WP:AN is also the catch-all noticeboard for stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Monitoring period

edit

Congratulations, @The Original Bob:! You have completed the instruction portion of this course. Our next stage is up to you. During this time, you are free to revert vandalism (and edit Wikipedia) as you normally do; I will monitor your progress in counter-vandalism. I see that you edit infrequently so it may be a couple weeks before I see enough of your editing before I get a feel for your readiness. If there are any issues, I will raise them with you and if you have any problems, you are free to ask me. Once I am satisfied with your progress, you will take the final test.

If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look. I want to assess your ability but I also want to help as you see editing unfold. The final test is going to look a lot like the test you just took, so there will be scenarios for you to deal with, applying our policies and guidelines against the stuff you'll see on-wiki.

  • To editor The Original Bob: I noticed your speedy delete nom of Amy ruffle. It's seldom a good idea to nominate an article for deletion minutes after someone creates it as they are likely still developing it and ambushing them will only start off on the wrong foot. (Not everyone uses sandboxes.) The article creator removed your CSD tag, in violation of WP:CSD. (A third-party editor can remove a CSD tag, but the creator has to contest the deletion.) I issued a warning to the user, performed research per WP:BEFORE, and nominated the article for deletion per WP:AFD. It's an apparent re-creation of Amy Ruffle which was deleted thrice before under WP:PROD so it can't be speedy deleted for that reason. This way, no one can remove the AfD tag and the article can be deleted per my reasoning (WP:NACTOR) and can be speedy deleted if the creator attempts to re-create. Deletion can be a sticky affair and I caution you from becoming a deletionist. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'll do that from now on. The Original Bob (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris, in the first instance I placed the speedy deletion tag as the user was created for promotional purposes but then was unsure as to whether User pages can be speedily deleted. I thought it best to assume good faith but that they should be made aware of the COI username issues around their username. I had planned to monitor the situation to see if they started promotional edits.

In the second case, I assumed good faith that the person was trying to improve the article but hadn't used any citations. Looking back, I should have also made them aware of the importance of Wikipedia remaining neutral and to avoid using words like 'claimed' or 'disputed' as it implies the subject of the BLP was lying.

What would you have done in these situations? The Original Bob (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@The Original Bob: In the first instance, your instinct was right; A userpage being used as a webhost especially applies to new editors that haven't made edits in main namespace. After a user has made edits it becomes a matter of how "unambiguous" the advertising is. If you're unsure about the circumstances for speedy deletion, look it up at WP:CSD. Absolutely use our policies, guidelines, and essays as a reference when taking actions like these until you know the applicable guidance. You can tell a Wikipedian by how well they know policies, guidelines, and essays in discussions. It's like being a lawyer knowing case law. In the second instance, what that user did was not a test. Yes, they made a good-faith edit but a warning about adding unreferenced material is more helpful to them. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Final Exam

edit

To editor The Original Bob: This is the CVUA test I've designed; it takes queues from previous tests and encapsulates training you've gone through. The design of the test includes a grading component and you'll have to meet or exceed 80% overall to pass with no less than 70% in each part of the test. Some of these questions are deliberately tricky so it's not unlikely you'll get less than 100%. When responding to numbered questions please start your response with "#:" (except where shown otherwise - with **). Unlike the previous training, you don't need to worry about signing your answers. You have the next seven days to finish this final test. I encourage you to read the applicable policies and guidelines if you have any doubts about the right answers. Examining your previous training (above) may be helpful, too.

Part 1 (25%)

edit

Marks: 5
Marks obtained: 5

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'd assume good faith because it could be a mistake and issue an test warning but if they continued with similar edits I'd treat it like vandalism Y
  2. A user adds their signature to an article they've edited after 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'd assume good faith and use their talk page to explain the issue Y
  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?
    I'd issue a level 2 vandal warning and would escalate the warnings from there until I submit them for admin intervention Y
  4. A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article more than once?
    Assume good faith and issue test edit warning Y
  5. A user removes sources information from an article, with the summary 'this is false'. How do you respond if it's their first time; what if they do it again? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions?
    This classes as vandalism, I'd issue a delete1 template warning and request that they put better edit summaries into the template. Y

Part 2 (15%)

edit

Marks: 12
Marks obtained: 12

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 Malta University Historical Society.
    uw-delete1 Y
  2. A user puts curse words into the article about Derek Jeter, thereby tripping an edit filter.
    subst:uw-attempt Y
  3. A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
    subst:uw-efsummary Y
  4. A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
    subst:uw-vandalism1 Y
  5. A user removes all pictures from Human sexuality.
    subst:uw-delete1
     Y I can't say you're wrong, but uw-notcensored is really better for this situation
  6. A user adds www.lyricsworld.com to Corrs and Westlife and Robbie Williams.
    uw-spam2 Y
  7. A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
    subst:uw-vandalism1 Y
  8. A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
    uw-defamatory1 Y
  9. A user blanks Rosebud (film), for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
    subst:uw-delete4im Y
  10. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
    submit for admin intervention Y
  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).
    submit to ANI Y
  12. A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
    subst:uw-image1 Y

Part 3 (10%)

edit

Marks: 7
Marks obtained: 7

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)!
    subst:db-g11 Y
  2. Thirteen years ago, David Deutsch was arrested in Salinas, California, while making his regular drug trafficking run from Los Angeles to San Francisco. When his car was pulled over, he was under the influence of marijuana; police found large amounts of cocaine and marijuana in the vehicle, as well as $715,000 in cash. Although he had been using and dealing drugs most of his adult life, Deutsch had never previously been caught, so he received a rather lenient sentence (by California standards) of six years in San Quentin State Prison. The day of his arrest was the last time Deutsch used drugs. Early in his prison term, he says, he decided to dedicate the rest of his life to helping others with drug problems. At San Quentin he volunteered to run a peer tutoring program, joined Narcotics Anonymous, and became a chapel clerk. He published an article on prison education in The Journal of Prisoners on Prisons — unlike most inmates, he held a college degree. After his release, he became a certified addiction counselor and earned a master’s degree in social work, with a 4.0 grade point average. Despite all that, he needed no less than 58 letters of recommendation to get his license as an associate social worker. Once equipped with those testimonials, Deutsch received a formal Certificate of Rehabilitation — declaring him to be officially reformed — from the state of California in 2011. His drive to inspire others to turn their lives around has an almost physical intensity. He currently works as a clinical director for one of the country’s largest mental health agencies, where he runs a program for former prisoners who are mentally ill.
    The article seems to be copy and pasted from http://wilsonquarterly.com/quarterly/the-american-quest-for-redemption/americas-prisons-the-end-of-second-acts/. Since this is a direct copy, it would infringe copyright so I'd use subst:db-g12 Y
  3. A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper. Unlike its close relation, the Liger, it is not known for its magical abilities.
    subst:db-g3 Y
  4. Fuck Wiki!
    subst:db-g10 Y

Part 3 1/2

edit

What would you do in the following circumstance:

  • A user blanks a page they very recently created.
    • I'd tag it for speedy deletion. Y
  • After you have "speedy delete" tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
    • Authors of articles aren't allowed to remove speedy deletion tags,as per WP:CSD, but can contest them. I'd discuss this on their talk page and request deletion of the article. Y
  • You find a page that was created by User:Flightofthewiki and edited by no one else.
    • Clicking on the user's name shows that they are a banned sockpuppet account so the page should be deleted according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:G5#G5 if the article created is in breach of their block i.e. if the article is about a topic for which the user has been blocked from editing. Y

Part 4 (10%)

edit

Marks: 8
Marks obtained: 7

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. Blanchbrassband
    Blatant promotional name, I'd report it to UAA Y
  2. Callmeirresponsible
    This seems okay Y
  3. Brian's Bot
    usernames should avoid presenting themselves as bots or scripts so I'd report to UAA Y
  4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
    It's a bit confusing but I don't think there's anything wrong with it Y
  5. Bobsysop
    This seems okay
     N Has "sysop" in the name; deserves a warning at least.
  6. 12:12, 23 June 2012
    This would be confusing when signing off edits, I'd report it to UAA  Y
  7. PMiller
    This is okay Y
  8. OfficialMarkLevin
    Name suggests it might be trying to represent Mark Levin but I would discuss the issue with the user. They might just have the same name so I would suggest their user page makes clear that there is no relation. If the user started editing on pages related to Mark Levin then I would raise the issue again and report to UAA. Y

Part 5 (10%)

edit

Marks: 7
Marks obtained: 7

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 Y
  2. Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
    Report vandalism-only accounts to AIV Y
  3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
    Report complex abuse to the admin noticeboard Y
  4. Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
    To the UAA Y
  5. Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
    To ANI Y
  6. Where and how should an edit war be reported?
    AN3 Y
  7. Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
    BLPN Y

Part 6 - Application on wiki (30%)

edit

Marks: 11
Marks obtained: 8

When interacting with IPs in this section, tag their user talk pages with correct version of {{Shared IP}}.
  • Find and revert three instances of vandalism (by different editors on different pages), and appropriately warn the editor. Please give the diffs each warning below.
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Oglethorpe&diff=prev&oldid=623180541  Y
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Angeles_International_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=623182354
     N No Shared IP tag

Correction: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:194.82.227.17&diff=prev&oldid=626898645

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kelis&diff=prev&oldid=623182916
     N No Shared IP tag

Correction: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tdmillionaire&diff=prev&oldid=626908832

  • Find and revert two good faith edits, and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_Thurman&diff=prev&oldid=623174261
     N No Shared IP and I'm not so sure calling someone gay can be good faith; I guess it depends

Correction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Briankinnear1

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_Dravida&diff=prev&oldid=623175805  Y
  • Correctly report two users (either AIV or ANI). Give the diffs of your report below.
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=627138543
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=627023628

 Y

  • Correctly request the protection of two articles; post the diffs of your requests below.
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=626901760
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=627003004

 Y

  • Correctly nominate one article for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nomination below.
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V%C5%A1eobecn%C3%A1_%C3%BAverov%C3%A1_banka&diff=prev&oldid=623176479  Y
  • Correctly report one username as a breach of policy.
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=623177851  Y

Final score

edit
Part Total available Your score Percentage weighting Your percentage
1 5 5 25 100% (.25)
2 12 12 15 100% (.15)
3 7 7 10 100% (.10)
4 8 7 10 87.5% (.0875)
5 7 7 10 100% (.10)
6 11 8 30 72.7% (.218)
TOTAL 50 46 90.6% (.9055)
Hi Chris Troutman, tomorrow I'm going backpacking around Europe for two weeks, so won't have access to a computer for awhile. I've spent most of the day on this to try and complete it, is it enough to pass the test or can I pick it back up when I return? thanksThe Original Bob (talk) 16
05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I wish you'd've let me know earlier that this would be an issue. As you can see above, you failed to follow instructions leading you to fail part 6. If you got right answers on the remaining questions you could pass, so I encourage you to finish now. I'm undecided on allowing you a two-week break. I may assign a new, longer part 6 when you return in a fortnight. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
On second thought, I don't think it makes sense to change the final exam after I've already assigned it. You'll have to complete the remaining questions correctly in order to pass, when you return. I didn't warn you at the outset that this is meant to be finished at one time so it's unfair to penalize you. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Graduate

edit
 
The Original Bob is a CVU graduate!

Congratulations The Original Bob on your successful completion of this CVUA program from the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with 90.6%. Well done. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

As a CVU Academy graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox.
{{User CVUA|graduate}}:

 This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_Original_Bob/My_CVUA&oldid=627323379"