User:Jianhui67/CVUA/Tasks

Attention to CVUA Trainers: If you are using this course material for your students, please ensure to review and update any questions or tasks related to outdated and inactive tools. It is important to provide accurate and relevant information to your learners. Thanks!

CVUA students: please don't look through this page. I will release the tasks as you are ready for them on your Academy page. Looking now will spoil the surprise, and won't achieve the scaffolding I'm going for.

Hello, welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your academy page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me at my talk page.

Make sure you read through Wikipedia:Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

How to use this page

This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.

Once you graduate I will copy this page into your userspace so you have a record of your training and a reference for the future.

Swap the following two around depending on the student's experience.

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

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

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.

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 reverts in your edit history if you wish.

Good faith

Vandalism

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?

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

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

If a user has vandalized twice but has not received any warnings for it, what would you do?

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

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

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.

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

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:").

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.

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.

Igloo is a browser-based, JavaScript tool for handling vandalism on Wikipedia and an RC patrol tool that is currently in alpha. It works with either Firefox or Google Chrome.

Occasionally, some vandals will not appreciate your good work and try to harass or troll you. In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, you should not engage with them and leave a note at WP:ANI. If they vandalise your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. Please read WP:DENY.

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

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

What would you do if there is a troll harassing you?

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.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

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

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 2 protected?

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

In what circumstances should a page be move protected?

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

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

What is a content dispute?

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

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly without needing to go through the CSD criteria?

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

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

DJohnson

LMedicalCentre

Fuqudik

ColesStaff

~~~~

172.295.64.27

Bieberisgay

Bitchandcunts

WhatamIdoing

Uranidiotx929

King of CheckUsers

78.26

Callmeawesome

Correctly report one username at WP:UAA. Post the diff of your report below.

At times, when some vandals attempt to vandalize, they may trip or trigger the edit filter. When they trip the edit filter, they should be warned with {{subst:uw-attempt}}. When they trip the edit summary filter, they should be warned with {{subst:uw-efsummary}}. Vandalism-only accounts can be identified by looking at their filter log.

RevisionDelete (also known as RevDel or RevDelete) is an administrative feature that allows individual entries in a page history or log to be removed from public view. Revision deletion should only be used in accordance with the criteria for redaction. To request for revision deletion, you can send a message to administrators via their talk page or email (if privacy is a concern). Please see WP:RVDL.

At times, some edits have to be suppressed (also known as oversight) as they may contain non-public personal information, potentially libelous information, copyright infringement (on advice of Wikimedia counsel) or blatant attack names or comments. When edits are suppressed, administrators cannot view them. Suppression is even enhanced than revision deletion. To request for suppression, you can email the oversight team (Special:EmailUser/Oversight) or by direct emailing of oversighters. The list of oversighters can be found here. There are other ways to request for oversight as well, other than the ones I mentioned above. Please read WP:OS, WP:RFO.

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.

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

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

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

• The user has now added offensive words to the article 3 times. You have reverted three times already, can you be blocked for violating the three revert rule in this case?

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

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

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?

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

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

• 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?

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

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

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

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

• Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option would you use?

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

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

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

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

Scenario 1: /12

Scenario 2: /14

Scenario 3: /10

Your Score: /36

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 and combat vandalism more effectively and efficiently. Please read WP:Rollback.

Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.

I notice that you are fit for the rollback right. You can apply for use of rollback at WP:PERM/R. But remember, rollback is not an award or status. Misuse of rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator. Please leave a note here when your request have been approved. If you do not want the rollback right, it is fine.

Find and revert three inappropriate edits using rollback, and also warn the user with the correct template. Please remember when and when not to use rollback. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below.

There are a number of tools which assist users with reverting vandalism. I primarily use Huggle, STiki and Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool.

Discuss the three requirements needed for a user to access STiki.

What is the requirement needed for a user to assess Huggle?

Would you like to learn to use either of these tools? Why?

STiki is a tool used to detect and revert vandalism on Wikipedia available to trusted users. STiki chooses edits to show to end users; if a displayed edit is vandalism, STiki then streamlines the reversion and warning process. STiki gives a collaborative approach to reverting vandalism; centrally stored lists of edits to be inspected are served to STiki users to reduce redundant effort.

Please download use of STiki here. Then I will assign you a task with STiki. Please let me know here when you have downloaded it.

Users primarily interact with the GUI tool by classifying edits into one of four categories:

• Vandalism revert (If an edit is blatantly unconstructive and intentional in its malice, then it constitutes vandalism. Pressing the vandalism button will revert the edit, and the "warn offending editor" box should be checked so the guilty party is notified of their transgression. Multiple warnings will result in reporting at AIV and subsequent blocking.)
• Good faith revert (Sometimes edits are clearly unconstructive, but lack the intent and malice that characterizes vandalism. In these cases, one should assume good faith by undoing the changes using a good-faith revert button. In this case, the change is undone but the offending editor is not issued a warning and the revert is not marked as minor. A dialogue allows the STiki user to notify the reverted user with polite and informative AGF message templates.)
• Pass (If a STiki user is uncomfortable in whether an edit is guilty or innocent, he/she can skip or pass the edit. The revision will remain live on Wikipedia and the edit will be shown to another STiki user. Use pass only when you believe there is some chance the edit is vandalism, but you lack the subject expertise to firmly make that decision.)
• Innocent (If an edit is primarily constructive and not vandalism, it should be labeled as innocent. This does not mean the edit must be perfect in nature.)

Find and revert two good faith edits using STiki. Post the diff below.

Find and revert two vandalism edits using STiki. Post the diff below.

Huggle is a Windows application for dealing with vandalism on Wikipedia. Please read the Huggle manual.

Please download use of Huggle here. After installing Huggle on your computer, you have to configure it. Copy all of the codes from User:Jianhui67/huggle.css to your huggle.css page. If you have completed all the installation and configuration, please leave a note here to let me know. Then I will assign you a task with Huggle.

Find and revert two good faith edits using Huggle. Post the diff below.

Find and revert two vandalism edits using Huggle. Post the diff below.

Correctly report a user at AIV using Huggle. Give the diff of your report below.

Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool is a utility that detects and uncovers instances of wiki-targeted online vandalism. Please read through User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool.

To install Lupin's Anti-Vandal tool, please insert the following codes to your common.js. Please let me know here when you have installed it.

importScript('User:Lupin/recent2.js');

There should now be five new items in your toolbox (just under the Search bar of monobook skin):

• Filter recent changes, a link to User:Lupin/Filter recent changes,
• All recent changes, a link to User:Lupin/All recent changes,
• Recent IP edits, a link to User:Lupin/Recent IP edits and
• Monitor my watchlist, a link to User:Lupin/Monitor my watchlist.
• Live spellcheck, a link to User:Lupin/Live spellcheck.

Try using the Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool to find and revert two inappropriate edits. Post the diff below.

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.

Day 1:

Day 2:

Day 3:

Day 4:

Day 5:

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?

2. 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?

3. A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?

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

5. 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?

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.

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

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

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

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

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. A user blanks your user page and replaced it with 'Idiot Nazi guy' just because you reverted his vandalism and he got angry with you.

14. A user adds ''Italic text'' to California.

15. A user adds 'he loves dick' to Ethan Juan.

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)!

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

3. Joe goes to England and comes home !

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

5. Fuck Wiki!

6. It's Tiger Time!

What would you do in the following circumstance:

• A user blanks a page they very recently created.

• After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.

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. TheMainStreetBand
2. Poopbubbles
3. Brian's Bot
4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
5. Bobsysop
6. 12:12, 23 June 2012
7. PMiller
8. OfficialJustinBieber
9. Callanecc555 (assuming this is not Callanecc's alternate account)

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)?

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

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

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

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

6. Where and how should an edit war be reported?
7. Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?

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.

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

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

4. Correctly request the protection of one article; post the diffs of your requests below.

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

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

Passed final exam result: go to Completion section

Failed final exam result: go to message below before Identifying different kinds of vandalism section

You have not quite done enough to pass the final test, I'm afraid. You were, however, incredibly close and there are some areas which, if we work on, could be sorted out very quickly. Would you be willing to continue for just a little while longer to sort out those areas? I'll then set you another test in a few days to see how you've improved. If that sounds like a good idea, let me know here.

Identifying different kinds of vandalism seemed to be the main problem during the test, as it meant that you used incorrect warnings or didn't always distinguish between vandals and good faith editors. Vandalism is a very broad term and it consists of anything which is done to intentionally disrupt Wikipedia. It can come in many varieties: a random string of letters, such as "rtshbpfi596y"; meaningless comments, such as "Jim is great"; using inappropriate offensive language; blanking pages (though there is a separate warning for page blanking); and more. There are some instances of vandalism where it a generic vandalism template should not be used: if an article is a biography of a living person and the vandalism makes an accusation or otherwise attacks the subject, then some of the BLP warnings could be used; if someone makes a personal attack towards another user, then the personal attack warning could be used. Sometimes vandalism will be someone's own point of view ("I love X"); however, unless it looks like they are trying to improve the article, this is probably just vandalism.

I will give examples of different kinds of vandalism. Tell me which warning template you would use for each example, and be as specific as possible.

• Someone adds "fkjji5v3nup23eh" to Monorail.

• Someone adds "David Beckham has been sentenced for tax avoidance" to the David Beckham article.

• Someone removes a sourced section from Hyperinflation.

• Someone adds "I love puppies!!!!!" to puppy.

• Someone adds links to a website which claims to sell cheap insurance to vehicle insurance.

A biography of a living person (BLP) is just that: an article about someone who is alive. These are much more serious than other articles because what is written about them on Wikipedia could impact their lives. If there is libellous content on a BLP, there could be serious legal ramifications for Wikimedia (and, in some cases, for the editors who placed it there). Also, an person's privacy and well-being will could be seriously damaged by what appears on Wikipedia. For that reason, all contentious or negative comments on a biography of a living person must be sourced. This means that, if someone posts that David Beckham has gone to jail, there must be a strong, reliable source to support this claim, otherwise it must be removed. Vandalism on BLPs is therefore much more serious, and needs to be dealt with appropriately. This doesn't mean that we should stop assuming good faith; however, we do need to make new users aware of the stringent policies about these articles. Please also read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

In your own words, describe why vandalism on biographies of living people is more serious than other kinds of vandalism.

Give a two hypothetical examples of edits which would break the BLP policy and should be immediately removed.

That's good, but remember - BLP is about more than just controversy. If something is controversial, then there will be lots of conflicting views about something; BLP violations are worse than that, because they could have a negative impact on someone's life, and will cause legal problems for Wikipedia. Those are the two main reasons that we are so stringent about biographies of living people.

I will post some examples of possible BLP violations below. For each one, tell me whether it is a BLP violation, and (as specifically as you can) why is is a violation. Assume that no source is provided, unless I state otherwise.

• Someone adds "Michael Johnson has been arrested for theft" on Michael Johnson (sprinter).

• Someone adds "Vince Cabal divorced in 2009" on Vince Cable.

• Someone adds "Paul Gascoigne has written about tackling his alcoholism in his autobiography", with Gascoigne's official autobiography given as a source, on Paul Gascoigne.

• Someone adds "Jeremy Clarkson had a fight with someone in a pub" on Jeremy Clarkson with a report in The Sun given as a reference.

I think we could try another final exam now - what do you think? Is there anything else that you think you need to cover, or that you don't quite understand?

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 and a reason for that.

1. A user adds the cosine rule into Mathematics.

2. A user adds 'James loves cookies!' into Cookie.

3. A user adds 'I am very good in chemistry' into an article.

4. A user blanks some parts of Strawberry without giving any reason.

5. A user adds '''Bold text''' into Don Mueang International Airport.

6. A user adds '∑F = ma' into Physics.

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 writes on your user page 'you are a sore loser'.

2. A user adds random characters on Laptop for the fifth time after being given his fourth warning.

3. A user adds his Twitter link on 2NE1.

4. A user adds 'DAVID IS A RETARD!' on England.

5. A user adds 'and he has committed adultery' on Justin Bieber.

6. A user blanks the whole of France.

7. A user removes the speedy deletion template on his created article nominated for speedy deletion.

8. A user adds his own original research on Syrmian Front.

9. A user adds obscene images to an article.

10. A user removes maintenance tags without addressing the issues.

11. A user adds 'yoloswag' on Miley Cyrus after being given his third warning.

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

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

Correctly report one user (either AIV or ANI). Give the diffs of your report below.

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

1. ''Italic text'' '''Bold text'''

2. Leonard is the most handsome boy in Australia!

3. Christopher lives in Mexico and is 25 years old.

4. Nathan sucks in the whole world!!!

5. Get 2 for $16 Ben & Jerry ice cream at Giant Supermarket! Discount lasts only for 4 days!

6. dihurgulgkzgdvx

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

Correctly request the protection of one article; post the diffs of your requests below.

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. Accountant Thomas
2. Poopooeater
3. Sysop of the wiki
4. OfficialSNSD
5. Carrefour's CEO
6. Fukfukfuk
7. 14:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
8. Aaronbot

Correctly report one username as a breache of policy. Give the diffs of your requests below.

Answer the following questions.

1. Edit warring is prohibited in Wikipedia. Why is edit warring prohibited? What leads to edit warring? Does reverting vandalism violates the 3RR rule?
2. In your own words, describe why vandalism on biographies of living people is more serious than other kinds of vandalism.
3. What would you do if a troll keeps harassing you? What must you not engage with the trolls?
4. What is the difference between semi and full protection? When would a page be fully protected?
5. In your own words, describe why personal attacks are harmful.

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 x% 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).
{{User CVUA|graduate}}:

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.