Hello, welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your academy page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me in the section below. 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.
Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.
Write any questions here! Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
changing height or weight
tag, I came across a user who has made over twenty mobile edits – all to height/weight data of sportspeople. Is this classed as sneaky vandalism; should I warn them and/or notify AIV? Seba5tien (talk/contribs) 13:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Opening the section. Feel free to start whenever you want. I'll probably go to bed before I can review it. Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.
Already done I enabled and set up Twinkle after receiving autoconfirmed rights.
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.
A good faith edit is made with helpful, curious or otherwise benign intentions. This might be in the form of a test edit in the mainspace, use of original research or a comment construed as a challenge towards another user. Good faith should be assumed because most users try to contribute positively to Wikipedia (e.g. being bold, even if the outcome leads to a minor mistake. Very new users and those contributing without an account (IP edits) may make several good faith mistakes while editing. Good faith edits are still open for comment and discussion and should be supported with helpful advice and reminders. Of course, these edits can be recognised by other users and reverted assuming good faith throughout.
Good faith is not vandalism, and should not be challenged as such, However, while good faith edits should not be considered ill-intentioned, assuming good faith is not always required. This usually applies in cases where an edit is clearly evidenced as vandalism. A vandalism edit is any edit of malice which carries the deliberate intention of damaging or otherwise affecting Wikipedia. Common examples of vandalism include malicious account usage, the addition of garbled nonsense, profanities and blanking of pages. More subtle forms of vandalism include height/weight changes and hoax generation.
To summarise, vandalism is executed with ill intentions, while good faith edits are executed with benign intentions.
Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool monitors the RSS feed and flags edits with common vandalism terms. It's a very simple tool, but which is useful for not having to go check each and every diff on Recent Changes.
The first tool I want to mention is Twinkle, it's a very useful and I strongly suggest you enable it (in the Gadgets section of your preferences). It provides three types of rollback functions (vandalism, normal and AGF) as well as an easy previous version restore function (for when there are a number of different editors vandalising in a row). Other functions include a full library of speedy deletion functions, and user warnings. It also has a function to propose and nominate pages for deletion, to request page protection to report users to WP:AIV & WP:UAA (which we'll get to later).
See rollback, this user right introduces an easy rollback button (which with one click reverts an editor's contributions. I'll let you know when I think you're ready to apply for the rollback user right.
STiki consists of (1) a component that listens to the RecentChanges feed and scores edits on their possibility of being uncontructive; and (2) An application which scans through the most recent revisions on pages and scores the possibility of them being uncontructive.
Huggle is a Windows program which parses (orders them on the likelihood of being unconstructive edits and on the editor's recent history) from users not on its whitelist. It allows you to revert vandalism, warn and reports users in one click.
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.
We use warnings to advise users that their actions may have contravened a Wikipedia policy or been construed as bad-faith (e.g. vandalism). Warnings follow a set standard; the warning level increases if the contravention is repeated or becomes more serious. There are warning templates for each issue and contravention. In most cases, warnings are used in circumstances where clear evidence of vandalism or bad-faith exists. Warnings may also be used for good-faith test edits; the outcome of these is to assist and educate new users positively.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
A Level 4im is also known as an Only Warning. This type of warning is appropriate in "cease and desist" cases where serious bad faith activity and contravention is clearly evidenced. 4im may be used when a specific registered user or IP repeatedly and excessively carries out acts of disruption and vandalism on Wikipedia. Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, substitution should be used instead of transclusion. While substituted warnings are automatically delivered by automated tools, they can also be invoked manually. Place subst:
before the template name inside the the curly brackets, like this: ((subst:your template))
. This is important because, if the warning template changes, the page containing said template will not.
If a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning repeats their vandalism, they should immediately be reported on the WP:AIV (Administrator Intervention against Vandalism) user noticeboard.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
((Tlsubst|''name of template''))
) of three different warnings (not different levels of the same warning and excluding the test edit warning levels referred to below), that you might need to use while recent changes patrolling and explain what they are used for.1. ((subst:uw-vandalism1))
is used as the Level 1 (first warning) for "blatant" vandalism. This warning is more informative and directs the user to the sandbox/reporter's talk page.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
2. ((subst:uw-disruptive2))
is used as the Level 2 warning for disruptive edits. This warning informs the user that their edits have been found disruptive, explains how to handle disputes (which may be arising) and aims to deter them from future contraventions.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
3. ((subst:Uw-test3))
is used as the Level 3 warning for users making test edits. This warning clearly notifies the user that continued (mainspace) test edits are considered a vandalism contravention and may lead to a block.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Make sure you keep in mind that some edits that seem like vandalism can be test edits. This happens when a new user is experimenting and makes accidental unconstructive edits. Generally, these should be treated with good faith, especially if it is their first time, and warned gently. The following templates are used for test edits: ((subst:uw-test1)), ((subst:uw-test2)) and ((subst:uw-test3)).
I just wanted to make sure you know about Special:RecentChanges, if you use the diff link in a different window or tab you can check a number of revisions much more easily. If you enable Hovercards in the Hover section of your preferences, you can view the diff by just hovering over it. Alternately, you can press control-F or command-F and search for "tag:". some edits get tagged for possible vandalism or section blanking.
# | Diff of your revert | Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff | TheQ Editor's Comment |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Sorn Seavmey | Subtle height vandalism, undid with Level 1 warn | Seems good |
2 | Polycystic ovary syndrome | Second time this user added spam "healthy lifestyle" site to medical article, undid with Level 2 warn (already warned by other editor) | I believe it does not breach WP:EL since it was put on a reference. See questions section. Also, I believe that was a good faith edit |
3 | Kawasaki Frontale | Unusual edit modifications to infobox, reverted with Level 1 warn | Maybe I would've warned him about not citing a reference |
4 | Appalachian Mountains | User blanked entire section, reverted with Level 1 warn | Question: In his edit summary, he wrote that it was 'Un-sourced - personal write up.' Therefore, I believe you should have discussed it with him on the talk page. I'll give it a ✓ Pass though |
5 | Enagh Lough | Text added by Shared IP user with long history of vandalism – (shared user may have bypassed IP disablement?) | Good revert, however remember to assume good faith. IPs are occasionally public, and sometimes bad-faith and good-faith editors use them. |
6 | Rural Life Centre, Tilford | Minor non-constructive edit to article prose, reverted with Level 1 warn | ✓ Pass As below |
7 | Rural Life Centre, Tilford | Same article and user as above, user re-edited article with another minor non-constructive change. Reverted, level 2 warn. | , edit was test/vandalism. Good revert + correct template |
8 | Small | User re-edited page with non-constructive text removed earlier by ClueBot. Reverted, Level 2 warn. | Blatant vandalism |
9 | Toast Sandwich | Non-constructive edit. Reverted, Level 1 warn. | |
10 | List of Big Brother (UK) housemates | Non-constructive edit. Reverted, Level 2 warn. This user had an edit to the same page reverted by another editor; the editor didn't warn the user on their talk page. | ✓ Pass, however you should've warned him about not citing a reference. |
11 | Long weekend | Non-constructive edit. Reverted, Level 1 warn. | |
12 | Pokémon Go | Looks like a test edit – detected with the New User Contributions page. User added excessive Wikilinks to the page. Reverted, Level 1 ((uw-test1)) tag added. |
✓ Pass. Please note, however, that the problem with that edit was that it breached the manual of style policy. Correct template for what you thought it was. |
13 | Jamaicans | Looks like a test edit to the Trinidad and Tobago population. Reverted, Level 1 ((uw-test1)) tag added. |
Again, WP:MOS. ✓ Pass. |
14 | Multiple diffs, user blocked. Please see user contribs | Submitted AIV report as user was evidently a vandalism-only bad faith account, user now blocked | All good |
15 | Multiple diffs, user blocked. Please see user contribs | Submitted AIV report as user was making vandalism edits in bad faith (despite warnings), user now blocked | Might've game him a 4im warning before reporting, but still a ✓ Pass |
Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#Tools includes a list of tools and resources for those who want to fight vandalism with a more systematic and efficient approach.
What you have been doing so far is named the old school approach. As well as manually going through Special:RecentChanges, it includes undos, "last clean version" restores, and manually warning users.
There are a large number of tool which assist users in the fight against vandalism. They range from tools which help filter and detect vandalism to tools which will revert, warn and report users.
Occasionally, some vandals will not appreciate your good work and try to harass or troll you. In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, you should not engage with them and leave a note at WP:ANI. If they vandalise your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. Please read WP:DENY.
"Feeding the trolls" (giving recognition to these users) is referenced in the WP:DENY essay, which outlines how recognition is often a motivating factor behind vandalism incidents. Giving trolls and vandals recognition from popular culture leads to the vandals developing a self-absorbed sense of "infamy" and notoriety. Denying recognition to these users actively negates their motivation to continue vandalising Wikipedia pages.
Perfectly put. Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
A good-faith user enquiring about a revert should present their case in a courteous manner on the talk page, showing civility and genuineness. On the other hand, a harassing user (e.g. troll) operates in bad faith, and may try to blank the talk page, use profanities or attempt to assert themselves in an abusive manner.
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).
Please read the protection policy.
A page should be semi-protected when it has received a large quantity of edits from IP users (unregistered) and/or newly registered accounts. Semi-protection of pages prevents disruption and sockpuppetry, and is especially useful in BLP cases.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
A page should be pending changes L1 protected when vandalism incidents become persistent or BLP/copyright policy is violated. Pending changes protection may also be useful as a temporary response to pages gaining significant media/cultural attention.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
There are several different circumstances justifying a page being fully protected. If an article is receiving a "sustained" influx of autoconfirmed vandalism edits, a full protection request may be accepted; this may also involve sockpuppet users. Edit wars between conflicting editors is another circumstance, where a full protection request forces the involved parties to reach a suitable consensus without any more reverts.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Template protection should be used for pages with a significant amount of transclusions (as an alternative to full protection). This protection level should be applied to "high risk" templates and Wikipedia modules.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
"Bad articles" which are repeatedly recreated after a CSD request (or other form of deletion) can be creation protected with a case-sensitive "salted" request. This is an administrator-set special protection measure.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Talk pages are not usually set under protection requests. However, a talk page may be temporarily semi-protected if a severe vandalism event is taking place (e.g. major influx of sustained edits). Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Successfully requested RPP for Niantic, Inc. page on the basis that multiple edits have been made regarding the reliability/stability of Pokémon Go. Other users may begin to make similar complaints on the page.
One month temporary semi-protect applied. Here is the request page, approved request diff and successful protection diff.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The user right for semi-protected editing is at least autoconfirmed (or confirmed in manually added cases).
Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The user right for pending change editing depends:
Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
A page under full protection can only be edited by administrators (edits go live immediately).
Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
A page under template protection can be edited by a template editor (this goes live immediately). Administrators can also edit template-protected pages immediately. Reviewers can edit template-protected pages if they have the template editor right assigned.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Please read WP:CSD.
A page should be speedily deleted if it contravenes one (or more) of the generally agreed CSD criteria. This includes vandalism, deletion by user request, no indication of importance and obvious invention. CSD allows any user to nominate a page for deletion; this is reviewed by an administrator. In certain cases, CSD may not be the best option – stub articles, redirects and mergers are alternative options. The page creator should not remove a CSD tag, but instead click on the "contest deletion" button.
I have made a variety of successful CSD requests since obtaining autoconfirmed rights. Examples include:
Haven't checked the rest but I trust that they are fine. Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
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:
Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particluar attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.
I wouldn't flag anything here, this username looks fine (a person's name shouldn't be misleading, unless it is very similar to another user). Could be "Dan Johnson" or "Diana Johnson," for instance.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a promotional username which may have made edits in breach of COI policy. I would see if the user had made any promotional/COI edits; possibly reporting to the UAA noticeboard.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
This is an offensive username containing shortened profanities. I would report to the UAA noticeboard. This could also be flagged with the ((subst:Uw-username|Reason))
tag.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
This is likely to be a promotional username linked to the staff editors (likely COI) of the "Coles" organisation. As above, I would see if the user had made any promotional/COI edits; possibly reporting to the UAA noticeboard.
It's good that you wrote that you would check if the editor/s has made any promotional edits. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
A username replicating the signature Wiki markup is clearly misleading and can be reported to the UAA noticeboard. This could also be flagged with the ((subst:Uw-username|Reason))
tag.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
A logged in user with an IP-like username is clearly misleading and can be reported to the UAA noticeboard. This could also be flagged with the ((subst:Uw-username|Reason))
tag.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a disruptive username (personal attack) which should be reported to UAA.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations, now have mastered the "basics" so we can move on. Please complete the following progress test, and I'll tell you what's next.
The following 2 scenarios each have 5 questions that are based on WP: VANDAL, WP:3RR, WP: REVERT, WP: BLOCK, WP: GAIV, WP: WARN, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, and WP:UN. Good Luck!
You encounter an IP vandalising Justin Bieber by adding in statements that he is gay.
This would be considered vandalism, on the basis that the IP user has made edits containing uncited personal attacks (offensive) contrary to the Vandalism policy and associated guidelines.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The edits are breaching WP:VANDAL and also affect WP:BLP (due to personal attack and lack of sourcing).
Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I would recommend the use of ((subst:Uw-defamatory2))
as minimum; a higher level should be applied if the user has a history of vandalism edits.
Alternatively, ((subst:uw-disruptive2))
or ((subst:uw-vandalism2))
could be applied.
Question: Why wouldn't you place the first defamatory warning? Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
No, reverting "obvious vandalism" ("edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism") is not considered applicable to WP:3RR.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
As the user is posting from an unregistered IP, ((IPvandal))
should be used.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I would report violations of the WP:VANDAL and WP:BLP policies, adding offensive personal attacks which are uncited.
You see a new account called "Hi999" that has added random letters to one article.
This is likely to be a good-faith (non-vandal) test edit, in which the user is testing out Wikipedia functionality. Assume good faith and monitor user contributions.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I would apply ((subst:Uw-test1))
.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Rollback-AGF (Green) – AGF is "Assume Good Faith," please see above for reasoning.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
No, the user has not received a Level 4 or Level 4im (Only Warning) on their talk page; their activity should be monitored for any further contraventions.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
If the account becomes a vandalism-only bad faith account, an indefinite block should be applicable.
✗ Fail I'm going to be quite strict on this. Every user should be blocked if they vandalise after a level 4 warning. Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The user has a registered account, so ((tl|vandal))
can be applied.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I would refer to the persistent vandalism (despite increasing warnings), citing diffs and logs of the reverts made to evidence their bad faith.
Good, you added 'citing diffs.' Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
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.
Yes, I would use Rollback-Vandal (Red) in WP:TWINKLE for the revert.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I would use ((subst:uw-advert1))
or ((subst:uw-unsourced1))
– this is a clear WP:COI case.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I would flag WP:CSD G11 (spam/promotional) or G12 (copyright violation from company website).
, don't forget you can use ((db-multiple)). See this for explanation how to. Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I would leave the following: ((subst:Uw-coi-username|Laptops Inc))
Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I think a report to UAA would be useful, on the basis of the username being promotional.
Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
'Your Score: 16.5/18, 92% '
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.
Rollback may be used to revert "obvious" vandalism edits, edits that you have made (e.g. accidental change in user space) and edits made by a banned or confused editor. The final type of rollback must be justified with talk page and/or revert summary comments.
Rollback might be used accidentally, but these changes can be re-reverted. Rollback should not be used to revert good-faith edits (which an editor has a disagreement with) or in any abusive manner.
I am not suggesting that you request rollback permission now. I'm just explaining how rollback and the other tools work. |
There a number of tools which assist users with reverting vandalism. I primarily use two of them WP:HUGGLE & WP:STIKI.
Yes, I might be interested in using Huggle to assist with counter-vandalism work.
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 the 'questions' section. If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look.
Acknowledged I will continue to revert vandalism and contribute to Wikipedia over this period. So far, I've made some more reverts, AIV reports, UAA, RPP and a sockpuppet investigation. Thanks for your help! Seba5tien (talk/contribs) 11:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
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!
((subst:uw-test1))
message on the user's talk page. If the user continues to add non-constructive gibberish to articles, I would revert with Twinkle (Rollback: VANDAL) and increase the warning level until reaching a Level 4 vandalism tag. If the user persists, I would file an AIV report.((subst:uw-articlesig))
is a single-level advisory template, I would consider the next edit as one of good faith and handle this accordingly. I would revert with Twinkle (Rollback: AGF) and Warn with ((subst:uw-disruptive1))
or ((subst:uw-test1))
on the user's talk page. In the event of further edits, I would escalate the warning scale and revert with Rollback: VANDAL until reaching Level 4. If the user persists, I would file an AIV report.((subst:uw-vandalism1))
on the user's talk page. If the user persists, I would escalate the vandalism warning level until reaching Level 4. If the user persists, I would file an AIV report.((subst:uw-test1))
message on the user's talk page. If the user continues to make similar "I can edit this" style changes, I would escalate the warning level until reaching a Level 4 vandalism tag. As above, if the user persists, I would file an AIV report.((subst:uw-delete1))
tag. I would add an additional message to the user's talk page, requesting that they discuss their thoughts on the article's talk page, and might use ((subst:uw-vandalism1))
as an alternative. If the user has a positive contribution history, I would consider this an editorial dispute and steer the discussion away from a potential instance of edit warring, instead bringing the matter to Dispute Resolution. If the user has a negative contribution history, I would escalate the ((subst:uw-delete1))
warning until reaching Level 4. As above, if the user persists, I would file an AIV report and may request the page in question receives semi-protection on RPP.((subst:uw-delete1))
– if no evidence of prior vandalism, Assume Good Faith and treat as an editing mistake. Otherwise, start with ((subst:uw-delete2))
((subst:uw-attempt2))
– this warning starts at Level 2 because there is no good faith assumption (clearly non-constructive edit)((subst:uw-efsummary))
((subst:uw-vandalism2))
– use Level 2 warning from the start as there is no good faith assumption (clearly non-constructive edit)((subst:uw-delete1))
((subst:uw-test))
((subst:uw-vandalism1))
((subst:uw-biog1))
– requires citation to reliable source(s).((subst:uw-image1))
((db-spam))
(CSD G11)((db-vandalism))
(CSD G3)((db-nocontext))
(CSD A1)((db-hoax))
(CSD G3)((db-vandalism))
(CSD G3) or ((db-attack))
(CSD G10)What would you do in the following circumstance:
I would consider this an author-requested deletion and tag with ((db-author))
as long as the CSD G7 criteria is met.
I would revert the edit and warn the user with a ((subst:uw-speedy1))
tag (via Twinkle Rollback: VANDAL and Warn). I would add an additional message on the article talk page to ask the user about their intentions for the page.
((subst:Uw-username|Promotional username))
warning on the user's talk page and discuss with the user. If the user makes promotional edits, breaches COI or attempts to promote themselves, I would report to UAA.((subst:Uw-username|Potentially offensive username))
). The user can rename or abandon their username in good faith without requiring any UAA intervention.((subst:Uw-username|Non-constructive username))
warning on the user's talk page. While the username is not in breach of technical or policy requirements, I woudl recommend that the user creates a new username to edit constructively. The user can rename or abandon their username in good faith without requiring any UAA intervention.((subst:Uw-username|Potentially misleading username))
) first. The user should be able to rename or abandon their username in good faith without requiring any intervention.((subst:Uw-username|Potentially misleading username))
) first. The user should be able to rename or abandon their username in good faith without requiring any intervention.((subst:Uw-username|Potentially misleading username))
). If the user is not associated with Justin Bieber, the user should be able to rename or abandon their username in good faith without requiring any further intervention.In progress – working on this section!
Question: What would be the easiest way to find edits similar to this one? Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
✓ Pass. I am quite worried that you did not request protection for this article. Checking the history of Grand Theft Auto V, there have been a lot of reverts and vandalism edits recently. Please request it, however that will not qualify for question 4.
Extremely strictly, this is a ✗ Fail since the editor also made other edits similar to this one. Since it is a spam link, you should watch his contributions for a bit. If no more edits have been made after 10 minutes or so, leave it. If some have, then revert them and give him another warning. For some reason a Huggle user reverted one of his edits but didn't warn him. Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
✓ Pass Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
✓ Pass, you might also want to check his other edits to see if he had any similar ones. Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
✓ Pass, should be deleted soon.
Unfortunately I am unable to continue with my CVUA work due to additional work commitments. Thanks Seba5tien (talk/contribs) 06:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)