User:NorthwestPassage/CVUA/Kostas20142

@Kostas20142: Hello, and welcome! Here is where I will help you become a vandal fighter. When I post an assignment, please respond under the assignment (or in a table, if there is one). In some exercises I will ask you to provide "diffs". See Help:Diffs for how to do this. When you're finished an assignment, please ping me.

Tools

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

Twinkle

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

Lupin's Anti-vandal tool

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

IRC channels

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

Navigation Popups

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

Now that you've read these, reply below with which scripts you installed/what you signed up for. I don't mind how many you installed, or if you installed none, it's just so I know and can set tasks using those scripts. Also note that there are many more advanced scripts out there, but they'll only be available to you when you have more experience. @XboxGamer22408: I have installed Twinkle and Lupin's Anti-vandal tool Kostas20142 (talk) 16:50, 19 March 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.

Vandalism is the editing or behaviour that deliberately damages Wikipedia and its purposes. A good-faith edit might be unhelpful or damaging as well, but its intend is not to harm but to help. The user's edits history, the existance of previous warnings, and the severity of the edits can help to distinguish. In my opinion, edits of new users should generally be considered good-faith ones

Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. You don't need to revert the example you find, and I am happy for you to use previous undos in your edit history if you wish.

Good faith: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Divya_Khosla_Kumar&type=revision&diff=771117921&oldid=770630182 (it is his first edit, it was minor, better to assume good faith) Y This is a good faith edit, but I can't see why it is unhelpful. As this is a female actress, the change from "actor" to "actoress" is correct, however the user did make a spelling error.; 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Blackson&diff=771119369&oldid=770485964 Y Don't forget to warn/welcome the user.; 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ThioTEPA&type=revision&diff=771125100&oldid=771125093 Y In this case, you didn't need to warn the user, because ClueBot had already warned the user.

Vandalism

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Food_Detectives&diff=prev&oldid=770275658

2)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wig&diff=prev&oldid=769448725

3)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles,_Prince_of_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=771122174

@Kostas20142: Good job! I've added your next assignment below. Don't forget to ping me on this page when you're finished. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 22:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

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

Please answer the following questions

Why do we warn users?: The purpose of user warnings is to guide good-faith testers and dissuade bad-faith vandals or editors engaging in disruptive editing.

Y

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?: It would be appropriate in very strong cease and desist. should generally be used in the case of excessive or continuous disruption from a user or specific IP.

Y

Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?: Yes, because we want that in the archive, the actual template message sent to be shown, and not it's current form. {{ subst: template_name }} without the spaces

Y

What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?: If an editor continues to vandalize after a Level 4 warning or Level 4im warning, they should be reported to Administrator intervention against vandalism.

Y

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

1){{subst:uw-delete3}}. Should be used when a user blanks a page or deletes a lot of content( and bad faith assumed)

Y

2) {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} Should be used for blatant vandalism (last warning)

Y

3) {{subst:uw-spam1}} should be used when a user adds spam links (AGF)

Y

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

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

Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Please include at least two test edits and at least two appropriate reports to AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff	My comment
1	diff 1	Y
2	diff	Y
3	diff	AIV. the AIV is not for this edit but for the next, reverted by the bot	Y
4	diff	Y
5	diff	Y
6	diff	Y
7	diff	Y
8	diff	AIV	Y

@Kostas20142: Good work! Next assignment has been added below.

Dealing with trolls

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

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?: we do so because this recognition would feed them and encourage them to continue their behaviour

Y

How can you tell between a good faith user asking about why you reverted their edit, or a troll trying to be disruptive?: Basically by evaluating whether their question is sincere or not, taking into account the nature of their edit as well. But unless their ill intentions are crystal clear, i would assume good faith for this

Y

@Kostas20142: Next assignment has been added below.

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:").

You don't need to do anything here, just tell me when you have finished reading this.

@Kostas20142: Next assignment has been added below. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 14:54, 26 March 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 (I am not an admin); however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion or request protection. If you have Twinkle installed, you can use the Twinkle menu to request page protection or speedy deletion (the RPP or CSD options). If you want to report manually, either place a CSD tag on the page, or report at WP:RFPP.

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?: This level of protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sock puppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest

Y

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?: When an article is being vandalised regularly, but otherwise receives a low amount of editing.

N It's for when an article receives persistent vandalism from IPs and new users, but there's also constructive edits.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?: It is suitable for articles with persistent vandalism or edit warring from (auto)confirmed accounts and for critical templates & modules

Y That used to be true (but not so much in the case of edit warring, but on occasion), but now if they're autoconfirmed, we can just use extended-confirmed protection, if they're not extended-confirmed.

In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?: When a bad article, that violates wikipedia policies is deleted but constantly recreated

Y

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

Only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users Y The talk page must also have persistent vandalism, and not only IPs, this also includes new users.

Correctly request the protection of one page; post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=772317636 but on a second thought, i should had chosen indefinete

Y It was protected indefinitely. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 23:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted? (very briefly, no need to go through the criteria.): When a page needs to be speedy deleted due to blatant, unambiguous violation of policies, or uncontroversial maintenance tasks.

Y Please note that speedy deletion should only be done if the page meets the criteria at WP:CSD

Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons) and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below.: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HELIX_PHARMA&diff=772685484&oldid=772685377 CSD G6 Y; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kostas20142/sandbox&diff=772686980&oldid=739550794 CSD U1 Y

@Kostas20142: Good job! Next assignment is below. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 23:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Usernames

Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol the User creation log to check for new users with inappropriate usernames. There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed:

Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, usernames that impersonate other people, or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.
Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.

Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particluar attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.

Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).

DJohnson: nothing before I see their edits, as real names are allowed. If spam or vandalism , AIV, if other breaches of policies, the appropriate actions

Y

LMedicalCentre: UAA as Promotional username that also implies shared use

Y

Xb0xGam3r224o8: might not be allowed to be created by system itself. If it actually gets created, I would ask the user to provide some form of disambiguation, such as by adding {{distinguish}} to the top of their user page.

N This is impersonation. If you saw a user name like this always report to UAA(unless it is an alt account of the user). XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 18:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

JoeAtBurgerKing: not blatan violation to me, so same steps with DJohnson

Y

~~~~: maybe discuss the username with the user, for technical issues only (as <nowiki>~~~~ is also used to sign)</nowiki>

Y In this case, you should ask the user to change their username. Report if you don't get a response. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 18:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

172.295.64.27: UAA as misleading username , because it ressembles IP editor

Y

Bieberisgay: UAA as disruptive or offensive

Y

JoeTheSysop: UAA as misleading username because it implies authority to wikipedia

Y

@Kostas20142: You're doing well! Keep up the good work! Next assignment has been added below. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 18:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Revision Deletion, Oversight, and Emergencies

Revision Deletion

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

Oversight

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

Emergencies

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

Someone outs another user on the other user's userpage. What do you do?: revert and request oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently.

Y

Someone says that they want to kill themselves on their user page. What do you do?: alert [email protected]

Y

A user puts a grossly offensive statement insulting the topic of an article, the article is a BLP. What do you do?: revert(or CSD if new article) and request revision deletion

Y It wouldn't be a new article, because a defamatory article would not be a BLP.

@Kostas20142: Marked. Next assignment is below. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 21:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Progress

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

Scenario 1

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

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

Definately Vandalism. It's only purpose is to disrupt Wikipedia and/or to "promote" their homophobic ideas

Y

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

WP:PA and WP:VANDALISM

Y

Should you automatically report this, or should you give this person a warning? Why?

No warning. Definately vandalism-only account , and additionally, the edits themselves are too serious- enough to support straight inde. block

N Unless the account has made multiple vandalism edits, we cannot report to AIV. Give the IP a level 4im warning in this case. A 4im warning assumes bad faith, and is considered as an only warning to the user. If they make another vandal edit, then you can report them to AIV. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 19:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

In what place(s) would you report this? Why? Is revision deletion or oversight needed? Why?

AIV to block, and due to the death threats email to [email protected] , as WP:911 proposes. Redaction criteria 2 and 3 apply.

Y And don't forget to ask an admin to delete the bad revision.

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?

Good faith. New user, not very severe, most likely editing tests

Y

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

Y

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

Rollback-AGF since I assume good faith

Y

The user now has a level 3 warning on their talk page. They make a vandal edit, would it be appropriate to report this user to AIV? Why or why not?

I would prefer to give a level 4 first

Y

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

Yes, if the account is used only for vandalism. WP:BLOCK states that accounts used exclusively for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning

N Generally, we don't give indef. warnings for first offenders. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 19:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Comment: I almost always prefer to do so using twinkle --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Y

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

assuming a level 4 warning is given, i will check "Vandalism after final (level 4 or 4im) warning given". I will check his contributions list and, if valid(which means no(or close to) helpful edits but only vandalism), i will check "Evidently a vandalism-only account"

Y

Scenario 3

A user is adding unsourced comments to a BLP, but you're pretty sure that this person is acting in good faith. Do you revert?

Yes. Twinkle AGF button(green), adding my comment.

Y

What would be an appropriate template to use in this situation?

Y

This user now has a lvl 4 warning on their talk page. They add the comment again. Do you report?

Yes, using Twinkle, filling the IDs, and checking "andalism after final (level 4 or 4im) warning given" option

Y

Scenario 4

You see a new account called "LaptopsInc" which has created a new page called "Laptops Inc" (which only contains the words "Laptops Inc" and a paragraph copied from www.laptopsinc.com). The user also added "www.laptopsinc.com" on the Laptop article. You research Laptops Inc on Google and find that is a small company.

Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option (agf, neutral, vandalism) would you use?

Vandalism. If on the other hand, they had not created the article as well, i would pick AGF for the first time.

Y Use the neutral option to revert. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 20:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC) 3/4 points for this question

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

N Use Uw-advert1 or Uw-advert2. Level 3 warnings assume bad faith, and even for advertising, a level 1 or 2 warning is appropriate. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 20:01, 31 March 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. CSD G11, CSD A7

Y Notice how I said "a paragraph copied from www.laptopsinc.com". This would be tagged with G11 and G12. 2/4 points for this question XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 20:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

No, it is a blatan violation of WP:UN

N You should leave a Uw-username template on the user's talk page. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 20:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Yes. Promotional username, Username that implies shared use

Y

Scenario 5

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

Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s)? If so, which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?

Yes, definately. CSD G10

Y

Would you report this user to UAA? If so, What part of the username policy does the username violate?

Yes. Disruptive or offensive usernames part, and specifically "Usernames violating the BLP policy"

Comment: Logs suppresion is obligatory--Kostas20142 (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Y

The user puts the same insults in a different page 4 times, you have reverted 3 times already. Would another revert be a violation of WP:3RR?

No. according to WP:3RR , " Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language " is exempt from the edit-warring policy

Y

Results

Your score: 17.75/22

@Kostas20142: You have come a long way since we started. Great job! XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 20:09, 31 March 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.: It may be used to revert obvious vandalism, own edits, edits in your own userpage, to revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban (explaination might be needed) or to revert widespread edits(like from a mallfunctioning bot or misguided user). It may not be used for good-faith edits. Y

Rollback part 2

Apply for rollback at WP:PERM, and please show me the diff of you applying. You can skip this if you already have rollback.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&diff=773257602&oldid=773003814

@Kostas20142: You don't have rollback yet, but I've added your next assignment. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 17:09, 2 April 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 5 day monitoring period. During this time, you are free to revert vandalism (and edit Wikipedia) as you normally do; I will monitor your progress in anti-vandalism. If there are any issues, I will raise them with you and if you have any problems, you are free to ask me. After five days, if I am satisfied with your progress, you will take the final test; passing this will mean you graduate from the CVUA. Good luck!

If you have any problems or trouble along the way please leave a message in this section on my talk page. If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look.

@Kostas20142: The monitoring period has elapsed. I've added your final assignment. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 18:25, 17 April 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.
First time: AGF., then vandalism.First time: rollback and warn using {{uw-test1}} (using subst). If continues, I will increase levels (I may prefer the vandalism ones for 2, 3 and4), and after 4th, AIV checking vandalizing after level 4 warn. I will check whether Evidently a vandalism-only account applies(most likely will)

Y

A user adds their signature to an article after one being given a {{Uw-articlesig}} warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?
Assuming good faith. I will ask him one or 2 more times not to be doing this, and if continues, i will go to ANI

Y Generally this goes to AIV. 3/4 points for this question

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?
Leaning to good faith. Will warn using {{uw-vandalism1}}. If keeps doing so definately vandalism. I will increase warning levels and go to AIV if necessary

Y

A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
Assuming good faith. editing test.First time: rollback and warn using {{uw-test1}} (using subst). If continues, I will increase levels (I may prefer the vandalism ones for 3 and4), and after 4th, AIV checking vandalizing after level 4 warn

Y

A user removes sources information from an article, with the summary 'this is wrong'. First time, and after that? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions?
Assuming good faith if the user has a history of positive contributions, but I will consider it vandalism if they have a history of disruptive contributions. I will ask the user not to be removing them, but instead, to try seeking consensus at the article's talk page(maybe use a disruptive editing template). Second time, the same, with a template. If continues, depending of the history. I will go either to ANI(first case) or AIV

Y Great answer!

Part 2 (15%)

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

A user blanks Cheesecake.
{{Uw-delete2}}

Y

A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
{{template:uw-attempt2|uw-attempt2}}

Y

A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
{{template:uw-wrongsummary|uw-wrongsummary}}
A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
{{uw-vandalism2}}

Y

A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
{{Uw-delete1}}

Y

A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
{{uw-vandalism1}}

Y

A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
{{uw-vandalism1}}

Y

A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
{{uw-defamatory1}} pr {{uw-biog1}}

N If he hasn't been arrested, a uw-biog4im would be appropriate, as this is a severe BLP violation.

A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
{{uw-delete3}}, or maybe {{uw-delete4im}}

Y This should always be a 4im warning. Not docking points off because the right answer was there

A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
Report to AIV, checking vandalism after level 4 warn box , I will also consider wether vandalism-only account applies

Y

A user blanks your userpage and replaced it with 'I hate this user' (you have had a number of problems with this user in the past).
{{uw-npa2}}

N Report to ANI.

A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
{{uw-image1}}

Y however it might be a placeholder for another image. Discuss with the user if possible.

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)!
CSD A7 , CSD G11

Y CSD G11 applies more than A7 here though.

Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
CSD A1 , CSD A7

Y and/or G11

Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
CSD A1 . maybe CSD A7 or CSD G1 as well

Y

A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
{{uw-hoax}} (no such thing exists

Y CSD G3 and A11 would apply here. 2/4 points

Fuck Wiki!
CSD G10

Y You could also use CSD G3 here.

What would you do in the following circumstance:

A user blanks a page they very recently created.
- First, I will ask him on his talk page whether he intends to work further on it. If he says yes, I will move it to draft(redirect suppressed per CSD R2). If no, or if no answer I will tag it per CSD G7 Y

After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
- I will warn him not to be removing this tag, unless he intends to work on this. In that case, I will procceed per above

Y

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
this is a promotional username that also implies shared use. Violates username policy. report at UAA

Y

Poopbubbles
Disruptive username. Violates username policy. report at UAA

Y

Brian's Bot
Misleading username(because it implies a bot) Violates username policy. report at UAA

Y

sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
WP:UNCONF applies. I will add {{subst:uw-username}} explaining my concerns

Y

Bobsysop
Misleading username(because it implies admin privileges) Violates username policy. report at UAA

Y

12:12, 23 June 2012
WP:UNCONF applies. I will add {{subst:uw-username}} explaining my concerns

Y

PMiller
No violation

Y

OfficialJustinBieber
Misleading username(because it impersonates real person) Violates username policy. report at UAA

Y

Part 5 (10%)

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

Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
No, if the vandalism is obvious, but it is possible if controversial.

Y

Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
At AIV. If done via Twinkle, by checking the vandalism-only account

Y

Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
at WP:LONG as instructed by the cautionary notes

Y This would be reported at ANI.

Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
At UAA. Twinkle is a good tool to do so. You click at the appropriate reason(s) and add a comment(optional)

Y

Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
WP:ANI. User must be notified
Where and how should an edit war be reported?
At WP:ANEW . Users must be notified

Y

Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
At Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. {{BLP noticeboard}} template must be placed on the talk page of the articles until the discussion is resolved.

Y

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.

Y (all 3 correct)

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

Y (both correct)

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

Y (both correct)

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

Y (both correct)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coimbatoreliving&diff=prev&oldid=776168728

Y

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=776168635

Y

Final score

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage
1	5	4.75	25
2	11	9	15
3	8	7.5	10
4	8	8	10
5	7	6.75	10
6	12	12	30
TOTAL	51	48	100	94

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. You completed your final exam with 94% and no issues came up during your 5 day monitoring period; 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).

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.