This is the CVUA page for A 10 fireplane.

Important Note: This survey is intended to be taken without any use of onwiki links or guidelines/policies. Only use your current knowledge. I want to see how much you know; I'm not testing you. Please answer honestly and to the best of your ability so I can best accustom the rest of the CVUA course to your strengths.

• How confident do you feel about anti-vandalism?
  • A: I feel semi-confident about my ability to fight it.
• What is a good faith edit?
  • A: An edit that looks like vandalism but was not intentional.
    • Sort of. A good faith edit is one made with the intent to improve. Good-faith vandalism is made with good intent, but isn't actually helpful. Vermont (talk)
• What is vandalism?
  • A: Intentionally messing Updated a page or article.
• How could one distinguish between good faith and vandalism?
  • A: If it is clearly false or doing some research to confirm it. (Or look at the users history)
    • Always assume good faith. Vermont (talk)
• When should you revert an edit?
  • A: If I have undoubtedly found it as vandalism.
    • Any edit that harms the page should be reverted; it's not always blatant vandalism. Vermont (talk)
• What is sockpuppetry?
  • A: abusively using multiple accounts, to make your vote count more or to continue vandalizing.
• What should you do if you encounter a sockpuppet?
  • A: Not sue how to but use a checkuser?
    • Use WP:SPI. Don't create it manually; use Twinkle. Just go to the user page, click the TW tab, ARV, then change the report type to Sockpuppet or Sockpuppeteer depending on the situation. Vermont (talk)
• If you notice an account is vandalizing on multiple wikis, what do you do?
  • A: Warn/Block all of them?
    • If an account is vandalizing on multiple wikis please report the account to m:SRG. Vermont (talk)
• What is the difference between how you should treat edits from an IP editor and from a registered user?
  • A: Warn them the same, then put a edit ban on the IP, Block the user.
    • Not really. IP editors and registered users should be warned, yes, but there is no such thing as an "edit ban" for an IP. The main difference is that you need to take into account that the person behind an IP will change, whereas it (theoretically) won't for a registered user. Vermont (talk)
• What is ORES?
  • A: Not sure
    • ORES scores every edit made. See mw:ORES. Vermont (talk)
• If you see a threat of harm, what do you do?
  • A: Not sure
    • Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm Vermont (talk)
• If you see a copyright violation, what do you do?
  • A: Blank the page, and give your reason.
    • Remove the copyright violation, and request revdel. Vermont (talk)
      • @A 10 fireplane: You may G12 an article if it is blatant copyright violation. Revdel only when there is other useful material left besides the copyrighted material. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
        • @Abelmoschus Esculentus:Got ya, I will definitely use this if I ever come across an obvious copyright infringement on a page where I think the other imformation is worth keeping. A 10 fireplane (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• If you see personal details or doxxing, what do you do?
  • A: Not sure
    • Doxxing/exposing personal information (except one's own, when they're an adult) should be oversighted. Vermont (talk)
• If you see personal attacks on a BLP, what do you do?
  • A: Not sure
    • Remove it. Vermont (talk)
• If you see grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive content, what do you do?
  • A: Remove it and give the user warning that this is their only warning.
    • You can give them a 4im, although depending on the situation it may be better to write your own warning. Vermont (talk)
• What is metawiki?
  • A: A Wiki for news
    • Nope. See metawiki. Vermont (talk)
• What is mediawiki?
  • A: A Wiki for news
    • Nope. Mediawiki is the name for the software that Wiki(pedia/tionary/quote/books/source/etc.) runs. See mw:MediaWiki Vermont (talk)
• What is the Wikimedia Commons?
  • A: A Wiki for photos
    • And other images, yes. Vermont (talk)
• What copyright is text on Wikipedia licensed under?
  • A: Not sure
    • CC BY-SA 3.0 Vermont (talk)
• What can rollbackers do?
  • A: Revert multiple edits on the same page by one user.
• What are a few of the more important things admins can do?
  • A: They get all the rights?
    • Well...not all the rights. I was looking for things like blocking users, deleting pages, placing discretionary sanctions, and other actions. Vermont (talk)
• What is a steward, and what do they do?
  • A: Not sure
    • Please read m:Stewards. Vermont (talk)
• If you have questions about anything, where can you go for help?
  • A: Wikipedia Teahouse or put the helpme template on my talkpage.
• Is this survey too long? Any suggestions?
  • A: No sir, great length and questions.
• Do you use IRC?
  • A: Not sure what that is.
    • See IRC. Basically, it's a series of online chat channels. If you want, we can use it to communicate between eachother and with other anti-vandal editors. Vermont (talk)

Done @Vermont:

I will add the next task in about a day. In the meantime, please read over my responses. If you have any questions, you can bring them up here or on my talk page. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF and WP:VAND. Once you believe you understand those, go to Special:RecentChanges and answer the below.

• Find 3 edits that are vandalism, and explain why they are so.
  • 1:([1]) - Adding it over and over just because
    • Good. Blatant vandalism. Vermont (talk)
  • 2:([2]) - adding inappropriate references
    • Blatant vandalism. Vermont (talk)
  • 3:([3]) - adding racial descriptions
    • Blatant vandalism. Vermont (talk)
• Find 3 edits that are good faith but disruptive, and explain why they are so.
  • 1.([4]) - I feel like he was just trying to summarize, but the reference was removed
    • Sentence blanking. Possibly good faith, so AGF. Vermont (talk)
  • 2.([5]) - I see this as him trying to add imformation, however its could be veiwed as vandalism since it is a list of who the name may refer to. Not the Natalie he was referring to.
    • This is blatant vandalism, and there I don't see this as possibly being good faith. Vermont (talk)
  • 3.([6]) - although useful it adds way to many headers
    • Making sections wasn't the good faith disruption; the promotional content they added was. Vermont (talk)

@Vermont: I have found the edit, how do I link you to specific edits?

Add a link to the diff. Also, please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Vermont: Done, ok I didn't think about that since its not a talk page A 10 fireplane (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I noticed your links were all from the mobile site. Are you doing this on your phone? Vermont (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've gone through and checked the edits you found. See my notes above. Before we start actually reverting, you'll need a good grasp on identifying types of vandalism and what to do. Your next task is below. Vermont (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

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, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labeling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.

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

• A: Vandalism would be intentionally messing up or disrupting a page. Good faith would be unintentional (accidental). You would always assume good faith, unless it is blatant vandalism. You could tell them apart by looking at what was done. If it was intentional or not, or if it looked like the user was trying to help. Example: [7] Or it it was obvious they didn't mean to help. Example: [8] A 10 fireplane (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

A 10 fireplane, are you editing solely with a phone? All of your links are mobile site links. Also, I will add your next task tonight or tomorrow morning. Vermont (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Vermont: Awesome thanks, yes sir I mostly edit off an ipad my school provides. A 10 fireplane (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's your next task:

• Please read Wikipedia:Twinkle, and ensure you have the tool enabled. I'm not sure how it works on the mobile version, although you can always scroll down to the bottom of the page and click "Desktop", which is what I do when editing on my phone.
• Once you've enabled Twinkle and read the page about it, please go over WP:WARN and answer the following questions:

Why do we warn users?

We warn user so if they are unaware they are doing something wrong they now do. Also to warn them of the possible consequences of their actions.

Users are warned to inform them that their edits are disruptive. In some cases, it may cause someone to stop vandalizing. Vermont (talk)

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

If I (or another editor) has warned the vandal multiple times and worked the way up the chain of warnings. And the next one would be 4im

4im is what is known as an "only warning". It is only for severe or particularly grotesque vandalism, and is used when there were no previous warnings. See this page for a table showing warning levels and templates. Vermont (talk)

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

It depends if the template wouldn't work in its current form, you would by adding --> subst: in front of the name.

You should almost always substitute talk page templates and warnings. You are correct as to how. Vermont (talk)

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

Report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to be blocked

Yes. You can use Twinkle for that; it makes it quite easy. Vermont (talk)

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.

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

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

Hello, I'm A 10 fireplane. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you.

Done @Vermont:

For the last question, I had expected you to do something like:

"((subst:uw-vandalism1)). I would use this to warn a user for their first instance of vandalism."

Regardless, I see you have a grasp of user warnings. Onto the next section! Vermont (talk)

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

Done @Vermont: A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 04:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Checked; see above. I'll add your next task soon, probably on Wednesday (it's a busy week for me irl, sorry). Until then, you can check for vandalism through Special:RecentChanges and Special:PendingChanges. Vermont (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes sir I'll read and follow above, no problem take your time A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 03:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

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.

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

A page should be semi-protected if there is consistent vandalism from multiple IP or new accounts.

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

If its a page that gets vandalized fairly regularly over a prolonged period of time

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Only as a last resort if no other protection works

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

If a page has been deleted multiple time but is still being re-created

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

only in the most severe cases of vandalism

Correctly request the protection of one page; post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

I cannot find a page that needs protection at this time

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted? (very briefly, no need to go through the criteria.)

If it doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia

Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons) and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below.

I requested User:A 10 fireplane/Vandal list be deleted after I found out it was in violation of WP:POLEMIC

[22] Was being used for advertising Dominos Pizza

Second Try

[23]

[24]

Done @Vermont: A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 15:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:CSD, the criteria, then go to Special:NewPages and correctly tag 2 pages for deletion. Of the two you have above, one you created and the other wasn't deleted. Vermont (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, will do A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 17:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Done @Vermont: A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 15:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Good tags. Your next task will be added below. Vermont (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

(from ThePlatypusofDoom's training guide)

Here's a test so I can measure your progress in this area. 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!

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?

Vandalism as slurs and death threats are obvious vandalism.

Y Vermont (talk)

• Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

It violates WP:HA and WP:PA

Y WP:HA yes, WP:PA applies to discourse between editors. There's a wide array of policies this sort of action breaks. Vermont (talk)

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

I would give them a 4im warning after the first time, however depending on the severity I might report them immediately

Y For death threats, it's best to just report immediately. They're not here to contribute. Vermont (talk)

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

I would request a revision delete first to hide it quicker, then I would request it be oversighted

Y Depending on severity, Oversight may be needed, although probably will not be. For death threats, revision deletion will be needed. A user who does this should be reported to WP:AIV. Vermont (talk)

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?

Personally according to the username I'd say vandalism, however when warning the user I would AGF

Y Vermont (talk)

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

I would use Template:Uw-subtle1

Y That, a disruptive editing warning, or test editing warning would work. Vermont (talk)

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

Rollback-AGF

Y Vermont (talk)

• 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?

Yes, after 3 Warnings if there is another vandal edit it would be appropriate to report them

N It should go to 4 warnings, then a report/block, although there is no formal requirement to go through 4 warnings. If it's really bad you might start at a level 3 warning, or a 4im, or report straight out. Vermont (talk)

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

Yes they very well could, they would have the opportunity to appeal it tho

Y Vermont (talk)

• Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: ((IPvandal)) or ((vandal))?

((vandal)) as it is a user account and not an IP user

Y Vermont (talk)

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

Repeated disruptive editing after final warning

Y Vermont (talk)

• 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 I would because of policies

Y Vermont (talk)

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

I would use Template:Uw-biog1

Y Vermont (talk)

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

Yes I would report them to AIV

Y Vermont (talk)

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?

I would go neural because although it is against policy they have not been warned yet

Y Neutral allows you to add a comment, so unless I want to do that I usually go with AGF or Vandalism, which in this case would be AGF. But, you can decide how you best want to revert. Vermont (talk)

• If you do revert which warning template would you use?

I would use Template:Uw-advert1

Y or none at all, and just leave the uw-coi-username template. Vermont (talk)

• 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 G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion

Y this, or A7, or G12 (content copied from website, likely copyrighted) Vermont (talk)

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

Yes, it violates Wikipedias Promotional names policies. I would request they changing their username

Y Yes, and use ((uw-coi-username)) Vermont (talk)

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

If they did not voluntarily change their username and stop making promotional edit I would as an account that is inly being used for promotional purposes

N They should be reported to UAA, and blocked, so that they cannot edit before their username is changed. Vermont (talk)

Ok, I didn't think about the fact that they could request a name change while being blocked. A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 01:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

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?

I would tag it, G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes

Y Yes, although G10 (attack page) would be better. Vermont (talk)

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

The user violates WP:U's Disruptive or offensive usernames as a username that contains or implys personal attacks.

Y Vermont (talk)

• 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, due to Exemption #4 Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.

Y Vermont (talk)

Done @Vermont: A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 17:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Your score: ✓ Pass 18.5/22 (84%)

I'm going to be taking a semi-wikibreak for Christmas week (i'll be working - it's the biggest tourist week of the year). In this time, if you're editing, just edit normally and do some patrolling in Special:RecentChanges. I will look over your edits, and give feedback, and we will continue from there. If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me here or on my talk page. Vermont (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem take your time, Merry Christmas 🎄 A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 01:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@A 10 fireplane: Sorry for the delay; your recent vandalism edits are good, and I have no/few issues with them. Would you like to take the final test? Vermont (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vermont: Not a problem at all , yes I feel confident A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 00:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Final exam from ThePlatypusofDoom

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!

For each of these examples, please state whether you would call the edit(s) described as vandalism or good faith edit, a reason for that, and how you would deal with the situation (ensuring you answer the questions where applicable).

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

   I would start off with a "test edit" warning, then work my way up to level 4 then block if they don't stop

Y

1. 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?

   Give them a level 2 warning, continue giving warnings and removing signatures until a final warning is left. Then report.

Y

1. 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 would start off with a level 1 "disruptive editing warning. Continue warning until level 4 then report

Y

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

   I would start of with a "disruptive editing" warning, if it continues work up to level 4 then report

Y

1. 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?

   I would restore the imformation and give a "removal of content" warning, continue till level 4 and report. If it was an experienced user I would state that there was sources and ask for different sources saying otherwise; while being sure not to edit war. If none are given I would say it was a WP:COI and request another editors opinion before requesting a page protection or the user to get a topic ban.

Y You should first check the sources and determine if it is correct yourself. Regardless of if the editor is experienced or not, you should assume good faith, and attempt to start discussion over the information. In discussions over whether or not to include information, consensus is to not include until consensus is achieved, so reverting will do nothing other than bring you closer to 3RR. In other words: don't revert unless it's obvious vandalism or obviously well-sourced and indisputable. If it isn't, start a discussion.

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

1. A user blanks Cheesecake.

   Template:Uw-blank1

Y

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

   Hello, I'm A 10 fireplane You recently tripped an edit filter for possibly adding curse words to Derek Jeter. While it is unlikely mistakes do happen, if this was a mistake please let me know.

N Not possibly; they tried, and the edit filter stopped them. As such, it isn't a mistake, and I would probably write a message similar to the disruptive editing warning.

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

   Hello, I'm A 10 fireplane, one or more of your recent edits to Denis Menchov have tripped an edit filter. Please refrain from repeating characters. Thanks

Y No need to mention the edit filter; simply the please refrain bit.

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

   Template:Uw-vandalism4im also I would report them even if no other edit is made

Y I would start at 3, although considering it's a personal attack I don't see an issue going to 4im. There's little chance of constructive contributions with that sort of behavior.

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

   Template:uw-delete1

Y

1. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

   Template:uw-test1

Y

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

   Template:uw-disruptive1

Y

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

   Template:uw-biog1

Y

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

   Template:uw-vandalism4 (Please note this is your only warning) would be added into to "optional message" area on twinkle

Y As they have not received any warnings, they should not be started at 4im. Rather, I would start a level 3.

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

   revert and report to AIV

Y

1. 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).

   Template:uw-npa1 also I would probably report the user if I have had problems in the past with them

Y Personal attacks against other editors can just be reported outright.

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

   Template:uw-image1 or Template:uw-upload1 depending on the image

Y

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)!

   G11

Y

1. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

   G2

Y A7 is better

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

   G2

Y A7

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

   A11

Y

1. Fuck Wiki!

   G10 or G3

Y G3

What would you do in the following circumstance:

• A user blanks a page they very recently created.
  • I would tag it G7 if its been left bland for more than a week

Y I'd tag it a few minutes after they blank it, or even directly after. If they intend to re-add content, they can remove the notice.

• After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
  • I would leave the author a message on their talk page asking if they plan on adding to the article. If I don't receive a response I would re tag it and give the user a Template:uw-afd1

Y It would be ((uw-speedy1)), and you should change the deletion reason to A3 if they do not add content.

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. NikeShoes - Yes, it implys shared use Y
2. IWANTTOTROLLWIKI - Yes, Disruptive or offensive username Y
3. Brian's Bot - Yes, Misleading username

Y only if it's not actually a bot

1. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj - Yes, Disruptive or offensive username, shows a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.

Y only if their edits indicate it's distruptive

1. Bobsysop - Yes, Misleading username as it implies sysop permissions Y
2. SteveTheAdminSUCKS - Yes, Disruptive or offensive usernames, has a personal attack Y
3. Justin Stevens - Yes, there will need to be proof

Y Considering it's a Cornish cricketer, it's more likely to be someone's actual name.

1. OfficialJustinBieber - Yes, it implys shared use

Y Doesn't imply shared use as Justin Bieber is a person, not multiple people. Unless, of course, he is a robot controlled by a vast army of lizard people. In which case, we have much worse problems to worry about than blocking this account.

• @Vermont: I need to brush up on this topic 😂 A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 05:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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)?

• Technically no, there is an exception to reverting vandalism. But if it's not obvious then yes Y

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

• WP:AIV

1. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

• I could be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Y

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

• WP:UAA Y

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

• Removed and Oversighted, depending on the severity you could contact emergency@wikimedia.org Y not oversighted, and unless it's a threat you don't need to contact emergency. ANI is the best place.

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

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Y

1. Who should you contact for material needing revision deletion?

• Template:Copyvio-revdel Y or any admin directly, such as email or IRC

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

1. Special:Diff/877460464 Y
2. Special:Diff/874508658 Y this isn't blanking; this is a personal attack
3. Special:Diff/872002489 - I started at a level 2 because the edit had been made twice Y

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

1. Special:Diff/881044709 Y
2. User talk:Hadil Sarah Belil (no diff) N you warned them for test editing. It wasn't a test edit; it seems they misunderstood that "study" was intentional, as it referred to the field and not the action.

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

1. Special:Diff/878918557 Y
2. Special:Diff/877278208 Y

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

1. Cannot find any at this time, still looking

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

1. I requested this redirect under R3 ((Db-r3)) Y

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

1. Special:Diff/878608185 Y

@Vermont: I have completed all but the page protection part A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 18:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I will check it soon; probably Sunday. Vermont (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 01:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

34.5 / 43 or 80%

✓ Pass

@A 10 fireplane: Congratulations, you have completed my CVUA course. You can now put this template on your user page: ((User CVUA|graduate)) . It has been a pleasure to help you become accustomed to anti-vandalism, and I hope you continue in that field of contributing on Wikipedia. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vermont: awesome thank you I really appreciate it, it was very enjoyable. Happy editing A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 05:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)