User:Mediran/CVUA/Arctic Kangaroo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Arctic Kangaroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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 atmy 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.

Q&A section

  1. If I encounter an edit which is obviously one in bad faith, but it seems like a mix of blanking and vandalism (in which the vandal blanks a section of/ the whole page and then replaces it with a sentence containing nonsense), then what warning should I issue the vandal? (blanking/vandalism) Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 10:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    The warning you should engage with the user is vandalism since the blanking he made was illegitimate plus he replaces it with nonsense characters, that is automatically vandalism as per Wikipedia:VANDAL#Blanking.2C_illegitimate. Mediran (tc) 12:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. Hi Mediran, I don't get what you mean by "that was just OK" (the edit which you say was actualy vandalism). Is it possible to explain? Thanks. :D Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 12:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    Haha... what I mean there was I was just complementing complimenting you. To make you feel worry-less. Mediran (tc) 12:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  3. So, how do we differenciate vandalism and test edits? Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 13:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    I'm sure you already know vandalism. Now those test edits are also and considered as vandalism because it is disruptive. Test edits occur in sandboxes and are not meant for mainspace articles. Mediran (tc) 03:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  4. But surely there are good-faith editors who probably don't know about the sandbox's existence and make tests edits in the mainspace articles, right? So, how do we differentiate them? Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 13:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, what you have said is right, there are but not most of the good faith editors doesn't know sandboxes but sandboxes are in some instances introduced when a user was once warned if the user is an IP or an unregistered user. Mostly, sandboxes are introduced in the the introduction when once a user has logged in. I'm a bit confused with your question but as I understood, you want to differentiate test edits in sandboxes and mainspace articles (correct me if I'm wrong). There are nothing to be differentiated because there are supposed to be no test edits that must occur in mainspace articles as much as possible. But If this query is about your current task, you must just find 2 simple vandals because tests are also considered as vandalism but this is not if in sandboxes. Mediran (tc) 10:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    PS Test edits are vandalism if those are in the mainspace but it is not if it is done in sandboxes. Here's an example of a test in sandbox, when this is in mainspace, this is vandalism. Mediran (tc) 10:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  5. So, test edits in mainspace articles are just like what people are more likely to test in a sandbox, but true vandalism is basically nonsense in the articles, right? Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 10:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
    Wait, what? You're saying that vandalism is nonsense and test edits are those that should be watched. I know you already knew things regarding vandalism. Now, as I say, test edits just implies those edits that are unnecessary for an article, that's why it is disruptive and is considered as vandalism. Dis you get it? Test edits are vandalism but vandalism are not test edits. Mediran (tc) 09:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  6. How do we differentiate offensive and disruptive usernames? I'm confused by the descriptions. Arctic Kangaroo 11:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
    Well, offensive and disruptive username concepts are mostly related to each other. According to WP:U, offensive usernames are those usernames that contain or imply personal attacks. Disruptive are those usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible, for example by containing profanities, that otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia and that seem intended to provoke emotional reaction ("trolling"). Well, since at the WP:U page, disruptive and offensive usernames are on the same section because they are mostly the same. Offensive username is like "IHateMediran", "FuckQ", etc. Disruptive includes usernames like "Trolololo" or have something to do with trolls. Note that "FuckQ" can also be categorized as disruptive. For me, they are just the same because when it is offensive, it is disruptive and vice versa. Hope this helps. Mediran (tc) 12:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  7. I don't get the difference between {{IPvandal}} and {{vandal}}. What are they anyway? Arctic Kangaroo 15:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    They are just the same functionally. However, they are different in use. {{IPvandal}} is used for anonymous or IP users while {{vandal}} is used for logged-in/registered users. Mediran (tc) 11:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  8. Well, do you think this (which I use) is appropriate?
    Level 1 = AGF
    Level 2 = No faith assumption
    Level 3 = Assume bad faith, pls stop
    Level 4 = ABF, stop or block
    im = LTA
    Arctic Kangaroo 11:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
    Nevertheless, these is appropriate. Mediran (tc) 09:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  9. Regarding Scenario 3, may I know what do you mean by "revert the edit on the new article to Laptop"? Arctic Kangaroo 09:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
    Well, I see that the exact wordings are "Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option would you use?" It means that do you think the edit to the article Laptop should be reverted as per the scenario given. Nonetheless, I found your question funny because it mostly imply that revert the edit and turn it into laptop or something like that. But the question given in the task is not similar to "revert the edit on the new article to Laptop". Thanks, Mediran (tc) 09:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  10. Although I have answered the question, I'm just curious. For one of the questions in Scenario 3, what do you mean by "If so then which template and what parameters"? Based on my knowledge, there's only one such template and what parameters does it have? Arctic Kangaroo 09:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    It means that if you're going to add a note on the user's talk page what would it be. "If so what template" means for an example {{uw-username}}. "What parameters" means by what specific WP policy does the user violates (e.g. by having a Promotional username violating WP:U or having COI). However, having parameters is not that necessary if the situation is so obvious. Mediran (tc) 10:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  11. In Huggle, is there any way to "pass" an edit if we are unsure whether the edit is vandalism/addition of false info? Arctic Kangaroo 10:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
    Just don't revert it or so whatever. Mediran (tc) 10:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism

When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. It is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labelling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.

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

A: Good faith edits are edits made in good faith, which means that the editor made the edits with the intention of helping to improve Wikipedia. In this case, he believes that the info he provided is true, but it is actually false. Examples of good-faith edits include editing tests. Personal attacks are not considered vandalism, although they are, of course, illegal and not encouraged on Wikipedia. Vandalism are bad-faith edits, in which the vandal hopes to disrupt the smoothness of Wikipedia and harm it. This may include adding false links, blanking, and nonsense being added to the page. It may even include adding false info to a page when it is all too obvious that it is too false to be a good-faith edit.

Yes, that's right. Now, the similarities of good faith and vandalism is that they are both disruptive. But what are their differences? The difference between good faith edits and vandalism is that the editors who are acting in good faith are trying to improve WP without the intention of disrupting it but unfortunately, there edit have caused disruption; vandals are those extremely disruptive and have bad faith. Good faith are those edits that the contributors doesn't know that it was already distrupting WP while Vandalism are those edits that the contributor's only goal is to vandalized WP and obviously know that they will cause disruption. Mediran (tc) 01:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Please find and revert three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. Please warn the editors with the correct template and give the diffs of your reverts below. If you need help with using diffs, just ask me.
Good faith

[[1]] Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 02:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

[[2]] Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 11:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

[[3]] Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 11:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


[[4]] Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 01:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

[[5]] Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 02:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

[[6]] Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 02:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow! You're doing great! I'm a little bit confused with this diff. I see that the user did removed contexts at the page, you must recognize it as vandalism because the user removed significant content of the page without any reason presented in edit summaries or per consensus. But that was just OK. Mediran (tc) 12:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

As you know, we are using Twinke, which is very useful for warning users. 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:UWUL.

Please answer the following questions.
Why do we warn users?

A: To inform them that they have breached a policy of Wikipedia, so as to allow them to realise their mistake. This will let them know not to breach that policy the next time they edit Wikipedia. It also allows vandals to learn from mistakes and contribute positively to Wikipedia in future edits.

When would a 4im warning be appropriate?


1. Severe or gross cases of vandalism

2. Persistent/Repeated vandalism from a particular IP address/account

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

A: Report the user at WP: AIV

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

A: Revert both vandalism edits and warn him just once for the 2 bad edits. Warn him further if he persists.

Ans to 4 qns above: Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 12:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I was impressed with your answers. Fantastic! Additional for 4im. 4im warnings are those only warnings. These warnings are those first and last warnings. This might be also applied to question #4 if the user's edits was extremely and expressly disrutive. Mediran (tc) 12:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Please give examples (using {{subst: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}}.

  • {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} - Warns vandals who vandalise pages, assuming bad faith for the 1st time.
  • {{subst:uw-delete2}} - Tells user not to blank pages or sections without mentioning why
  • {{subst:uw-3rr}} - Warns users involved in an edit war.

Actually, I had to try a few times to get the above three warning templates right. (format, text etc.)I am just trying to be honest so that you can train me more in this manual warning if you feel that it is necessary. :)

Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 13:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Your choice of warnings are perfect. Those are the good warnings to issue especially when recent-changes patrolling. Mediran (tc) 03:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Please include at least two test edits and at least two appropriate reports to AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below
# Diff of edit Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff Marker's comment (optional)
1 diff [[7]] (already reported by another user and put on hold, but vandalised again, thus my report)
2 diff [[8]] and [[9]] (2nd diff for addition of info)
3 diff [[10]] [[11]] (2nd diff for my suspicion of it being a sockpuppet)
4 [[12]] comment
5 [[13]] comment
6 diff [[14]]
7 diff comment
8 diff comment
9 diff comment
10 diff comment
11 diff comment
12 diff comment
13 diff comment
14 diff comment
15 diff comment
Could you please include the diff of your reversion of a certain vandal then if you have reported the vandal, please add its diff. Add your reversion next to the diff of your report. I saw only one correct report at AIV. Mediran (tc) 09:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mediran, I am not sure about this, but my sincere apologies if my mistakes (as above) have disappointed you. But that's precisely why I chose to attend this course. Is it possible to point out my mistake? Thanks. Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 15:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, you didn't disappointed anyone. I saw only one user that you have reported at AIV successfully wherein he was blocked from editing. Most of the requests above were rejected and archived. Just report one vandal at AIV successfully then you will now move on to your next task. Thanks Face-wink.svg, Mediran (tc) 09:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Marker's comment I will not going to comment on every boxes there above but I will comment here. Anyways, at long last! You're finished! Good work on that report that you successfully reported one vandal which was blocked from editing WP. Your next task is coming up! ;) Mediran (tc) 10:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have, in the past few days, reported quite a handful of vandals successfully, and I was ratther busy, studying and then editing WP after that. Face-smile.svg And, please monitor this page perhaps, on your watchlist, as new messages may come in anytime. :P Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 10:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


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 throughSpecial: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

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.

Uh...well, before reading this, I have been using Twinkle, not the manual undo. :) Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 10:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's good... this is just an overview of useful tools that may be considered in countering vandalism here in Wikipedia. It's been days, why are you not taking your task below? You're doing great but I'm beginning to think that you're quite being uninterested in taking this course since then. Please let me know. Thanks, Mediran (tc) 11:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry too much, just that when I'm online, I am doing what editors are here to do on Wikipedia. You may also want to take a look at the newly hung notice on my talk page. I will try to respond soon. Cheers, Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 11:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Face-wink.svg
Haha... I know that but I really worried for getting no response a while ago. Anyways, good luck on that examination coming these days. :) Mediran (tc) 11:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult 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.

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

A: To prevent increased vandalism on Wikipedia, as giving them recognition will only motivate them to further vandalise Wikipedia.

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

A: A good faith user will most likely ask in a polite, willing-to-discuss tone. A troll will probably insult the user, shout, or write in a rude manner. They may even try to threaten the user.

Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 00:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Great answers! Now, off to your next task! Mediran (tc) 01:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion

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

Under what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

A: A page which is rather frequently/infrequently edited (infrequently: based on experience) and is experiencing high levels of vandalism. Usually have few IP contributors.

Under what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

A: An article frequently/infrequently (frequent: based on experience) edited, perhaps have quite a number of IP contributors, but have a few rotten eggs among them. So that good-faith editors can still conribute.

Under what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

A: When a page is experiencing high levels of vandalism or edit warring from autoconfirmed users.

Above three qns: Arctic Kangaroo 15:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

YesY Great! Additional info is that PC Protection is applied is when new or IPs violates BLP. Also, Semi is applied if new or IPs kept on vandalizing the page disruptively and also from edit warring. You still have one more task to do to access your next task ;) Mediran (tc) 09:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.


Great reports. For the record, I never reported pages for full protection yet. And I'm impressed with you for finding pages with occurring edit war. Great! Mediran (tc) 11:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I have been observing that page occasionally over the past few weeks. The edit war has started for over a month. I have warned both "soldiers" and also reported them once already. But, for some reason, they don't learn and continue to "fight". So, last resort or else this thing will continue forever. Arctic Kangaroo 11:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Haha... good observation. And also, I like that "fun" regarded at your report at RPP. It made me laugh for some time. ;) Mediran (tc) 11:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

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

A: Personal attacks, nonsense, attacks on living people, advertising, unconstructive editing.

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.

A: Refer to my CSD log. Take your pick. Face-wink.svg

Arctic Kangaroo 11:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess I should not visit you log since I know that you did it right. ;) Mediran (tc) 11:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
"I should not visit your log since I know that you did it right." --> ??? Arctic Kangaroo 11:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Huh? I mean, "I should not visit your log since I know for myself that your speedy deletion nominations are right and successful." gets? Mediran (tc) 11:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, not all the time I get the criteria right, also got one page not deleted. Logging off for now, gotta go dinner. ;) Arctic Kangaroo 12:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol theUser 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 contain or imply personal attacks.
  • Disruptive usernames those that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible, for example by containing profanities, that otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia and that seem intended to provoke emotional reaction ("trolling").

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

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

A: Don't find anything wrong, could be a real name, eg. Daniel Johnson.

YesY that's right! Mediran (tc) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

A: Promotional username, because of "medical centre".

YesY that's right! Mediran (tc) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

A: Offensive username, resembles "Fuck you dick".

YesY that's right! Mediran (tc) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

A: Promotional username, "Coles" is the name of an Australian supermarket. (I would not have known that if I have not visited Australia. ;D )

YesY haha.... that's right! Mediran (tc) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

A: Misleading username, looks like a signature.

YesY that's right! Mediran (tc) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

A: Misleading username, resembles an IP address.

YesY that's right! Mediran (tc) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

A: Disruptive username, insults Justin Bieber.

YesY that's right, could be offensive also. Mediran (tc) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Above 7 questions: Arctic Kangaroo 15:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Mediran, I have swopted the descriptions of offensive and disruptive usernames, as per your answer at my qn in Q&A. Arctic Kangaroo 14:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Now, you have completed this area of your CVU course, you will now proceed to your next task. PS, you don't needed now to notify me if you're finished with your current task. I'm watching, it. If you did not receive your task timely, maybe I'm assessing it or I am offline. Thanks, Mediran (tc) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Progress test

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! Mediran (tc) 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Scenario 1

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?

A: Vandalism. If there's no ref, the user is just trying to attack Bieber on his article, and cause unnecessary disruption on Wikipedia. Arctic Kangaroo 15:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

YesY Mediran (tc) 11:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

A: WP:BLP, WP:VAND. Arctic Kangaroo 15:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

YesY Mediran (tc) 11:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?

A: Level 3, addition of unref conroversial info of living persons. Arctic Kangaroo 15:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

YesY but to avoid being bitey even if the user is disruptive, you should issue {{welcomevandal}} or {{uw-vandalism1}}. However, if the user has been warned recently before, higher warning is necessary. Mediran (tc) 11:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 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?

A: No, I'm just doing my job to revert vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 15:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

YesY Mediran (tc) 11:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A: {{IPvandal}}. Arctic Kangaroo 11:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

YesY Mediran (tc) 09:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?

A: Vandalism after final warning, violation of BLP policy. Arctic Kangaroo 15:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

YesY Mediran (tc) 11:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
PS Still one more question has not been answered yet. Mediran (tc) 11:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

 Scenario 1 complete Mediran (tc) 09:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Scenario 2

You see a new account called "Hi999" that has added random letters to one article.

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

A: Vandalism, of course. Random letters = Nonsense

YesY Mediran (tc) 09:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?

A: Level 3, vandalism.

YesY but it could be {{uw-test1}} at some point or {{uw-vandalism1}} of there no warnings posted yet. Mediran (tc) 09:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?

A: Rollback [VANDAL].

YesY Mediran (tc) 09:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 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?

A: No. He should receive final warning first and only reported if vandalism continues after that.

YesY Mediran (tc) 09:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?

A: Yes. It's a vandalism-only account.

YesY Mediran (tc) 09:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A: Template:Vandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

YesY Mediran (tc) 09:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?

A: Vandalism after final warning, vandalism-only account.

YesY Mediran (tc) 09:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Above 7 questions: Arctic Kangaroo 09:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

 Scenario 2 complete Mediran (tc) 09:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Scenario 3

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 "" 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?

A: Rollback

YesY Mediran (tc) 10:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • If you do revert which warning template would you use?

A: Level 2, using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion.

YesY Mediran (tc) 10:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?

A: Yes. I will use G11 (advertising).

YesY but it could also be a combination of G11 and G12 since the user did copied some contexts in the company's website thus it is a copyvio. Mediran (tc) 10:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?

A: No, it is proven to be used for promotional purposes only. Username also promotes the company.

YesY Mediran (tc) 10:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?

A: Yes. Report as "Promotional username".

YesY Mediran (tc) 10:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Above 5 questions: Arctic Kangaroo 09:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

 Scenario 3 complete Mediran (tc) 10:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


Your Score: 18/18. That's impressive. Mediran (tc) 10:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


Congratulations now for the next step. The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced vandalism fighters to revert vandalism with the click of one button. Please read WP:Rollback.

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

A: Rollback can be used to revert obvious vandalism, self revert, revert unhelpful/unencyclopedic edits and revert edits in our own userspace. Other times is not suitable for usage. Arctic Kangaroo 10:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you describe what are those "Other time"? Mediran (tc) 10:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Edits that appear vandalism to us but might be controversial, good faith edits which don't appear constructive and/or are unreferenced and to edit war. Arctic Kangaroo 10:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
That's right. Mediran (tc) 10:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


There a number of tools which assist users with reverting vandalism. I primarily use two of them WP:HUGGLE & WP:STIKI.

Would you like to learn to use either of these tools (Huggle or STiki)? Why?

A: Yes. I have been beaten to reverting vandalism by Hugglers on many occasions. Also, these tools enable me to rvv faster as they produce a list of possible vandalism edits. STiki can also detect vandalism which have not been detected for a long time.

Discuss the three requirements/qualifications a user needs to fulfill to acquire STiki.

A: 1) Rollbacker 2) >1000 article edits 3) Special permission via talk page

Arctic Kangaroo 09:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Great answers. Next task will come up. Your next task will take somewhat a week to finish because you will now take your monitoring period. Further explanations about your next task will be elaborated in the next section. Thanks. Mediran (tc) 10:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Monitoring period

Congratulations! You have completed the first section of the anti-vandalism course, well done. Now that we've been through everything that you need to know as a vandal patroller, you will be given a 5 day monitoring period. During this time, you are free to revert vandalism (and edit Wikipedia) as you normally do; I will monitor your progress in anti-vandalism. If there are any issues, I will raise them with you and if you have any problems, you are free to ask me. After five days, if I am satisfued with your progress, you will take the final test; passing this will mean you graduate from the CVUA. Good luck! Mediran (tc) 10:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but could this "5-day period" be over days whereby I log in and make a considerable amount of edits? Because I don't want to "cheat". Arctic Kangaroo 10:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Wait... what? Sorry but I cannot understand your wanting to say. However, this "5-day monitoring period" is not different as usual edits you do here in Wikipedia. This amount of days will just assess you if you have really learned in your course. This event is just an application. Also, there's no cheating can happen in this course at any angle and perspectives that's possible. What you're just going to do is just to revert vandalism as you normally do. This period doesn't count any amount of edits. This period just assess your countering vandalism skills. Mediran (tc) 10:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, what I meant was that each day must be for eg like this: I log in and spend 1-2 hrs reverting 100 vandalism edits. Not like this: Log in for 20 min and revert 15 vandalism edits. Hope you get what I mean as I hope to get a thorough assessment. Arctic Kangaroo 10:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you meant. Just revert vandalism normally and that's it. Mediran (tc) 10:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: The monitoring period of this user is due February 20, 2013 by adding two more days for the supposed 5-day period. The reason is because of this user's inactivity during the 16th and 17th. This monitoring period will now end on February 20, 2013 at exactly 10:00 UTC. If this user's still inactive for the said schedule, the end period will then be moved again by complementing days of inactivity during the period. Mediran (tc) 10:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Note after assessing this user's activities during the monitoring period of this course, Arctic Kangaroo finally finished the first and second section is now ready to take the next and final test of this CVU course. For you Arctic Kangaroo, Good luck to your next task! Mediran (tc) 12:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Final Exam

When responding to numbered questions please start your response with "#:" (except where shown otherwise - with **). You don't need to worry about signing your answers.


Part 1 (25%)

For each of these examples, please state whether an edit is vandalism or good faith (please also include a brief reason).
Marks: 5
Marks obtained: 5
  1. A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article.
    Obvious vandalism. These are nonsense characters.
    YesY That's right!
  2. A user adds their signature over and over into an article.
    Vandalism. User should not be doing so if he is a good-faith editor and has been warned.
    YesY That's right!
  3. A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article.
    Vandalism. The user is probably doing an edit test/adding irrelevant content, violates WP:NPOV.
    YesY That's right!
  4. A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article.
    Good faith. The user probably just wants to tell others that he/she can edit the article.
    YesY That's right!
  5. A user removes sources information from an article, with the summary 'this is wrong'.
    Vandalism. The user did not mention why the source is wrong, can be counted as unexplained removal of content.
    YesY That's right. It can be reverted as vandalism in the case of removal of content but this could also be reverted as GF without warning the user since he has a reason in his own perspectives that the sources must be removed because 'this is wrong'. We cannot question further why the sources are wrong as the user did but let's just consider that as GF. Nevertheless, if the reverter thinks the user has vandalism history in his or her contributions log or have been recently warned because of vandalism, it can be also reverted as vandalism. Likewise, in this case, the reverting depends whether to the reverter or the user being questioned.

Part 1: Arctic Kangaroo 13:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

 Part 1 complete Mediran (tc) 09:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Part 2 (15%)

What type of warning you would give an editor in the following scenarios. If you don't believe a warning is appropriate outline what you would do instead (make sure you state all the actions you would take).
Marks: 11
Marks obtained: 11
  1. A user blanks Cheesecake.
    Level 2, blanking.
    YesY that's right but it could be also level 1 if no other warnings were recently issued.
  2. A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
    Level 3, vandalism.
    YesY that's right but it could also be level one if no other warnings were recently issued.
  3. A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
    Level 3, vandalism.
    YesY that's right but {{uw-wrongsummary}} is better.
  4. A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
    Level 3, vandalism.
    YesY that's right but it could also be level one if no other warnings were recently issued.
  5. A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
    Level 2, blanking.
    YesY that's right but it could also be level one if no other warnings were recently issued.
  6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
    Level 3, vandalism.
    YesY that's right but it could also be level one if no other warnings were recently issued.
  7. A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
    Level 3, vandalism.
    YesY that's right but it could also be level one if no other warnings were recently issued.
  8. A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
    Level 2, unref.
    YesY that's right but it could also be level one if no other warnings were recently issued.
  9. A user blanks Personal computer for a fifth time.
    Level 3, blanking.
    YesY That's right.
  10. 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).
    im warning, personal attack.
    YesY that's right
  11. A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
    Level 1, test edit.
    YesY that's right.

Above questions (Part 2): Arctic Kangaroo 10:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

 Part 2 complete Mediran (tc) 10:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Part 3 (10%)

What CSD tag you would put on the following articles (The content below is the article's content).
Marks: 7
Marks obtained: 2(3+1)-1=7
  1. Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
    YesY that's right!
  2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
    YesY that's right!
  3. Joe Nathan is the biggest idiot!
    YesY that's right!
  4. A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
    G1, G3.
    YesY that's right but G3 applied better than G1 (patent nonsense)
  5. Fuck Wiki!
    YesY that's right! Or, it can also be G3

What would you do in the following circumstance:

  • A user blanks a page they very recently created.
    • Tag it for speedy deletion under criteria G7.
      • YesY that's right!
  • After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
    • Restore the speedy tag.
    • Warn the user for removal of speedy tag. ({{Uw-speedy}})
      • YesY that's right!

Part 3: Arctic Kangaroo 05:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

 Part 3 complete Mediran (tc) 06:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Part 4 (10%)

Are the following new (logged in) usernames violations of the username policy? Describe why or why not and what you would do about it (if they are a breach).
Marks: 8
Marks obtained: 7+0.999...=8
  1. TheMainStreetBand
    Report at WP:UAA as promotional username. Promotes a band.
    YesY that's right but you should report him/her if she already makes an (unconstructive) edit.
  2. Poopbubbles
    Not a blatant violation. Could be a constructive user just wanting a funny username.
    YesY that's right but you can warn the user with {{uw-username}} because it resembles "poop".
  3. Brian's Bot
    Report at WP:UAA as misleading username. Consists of "bot" when it isn't.
    YesY that's right but should warn first. If no response, then report it.
  4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
    Report at WP:UAA as disruptive username. Consists of nonsense characters and not what a constructive editor will do.
    YesY that's right
  5. Bobsysop
    Report at WP:UAA as misleading username. Consists of "sysop".
    YesY but warn first. If no response, better report it.
  6. 12:12, 23 June 2012
    Report at WP:UAA as misleading username. Looks like a timestamp.
    YesY that's right!
  7. PMiller
    Not a violation, don't see anything wrong with it.
    YesY that's right!
  8. OfficialJustinBieber
    Report at WP:UAA as a promotional username. Promotes Justin Bieber.
    YesY that's right!

Part 4: Arctic Kangaroo 06:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

 Part 4 complete Mediran (tc) 07:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Part 5 (10%)

Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.
Marks: 7
Marks obtained: 7
  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?
    WP:AIV. Just use Twinkle to report.
  3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
    WP:ABUSE. Must show the vandal's complex abuse, especially like the vandal is persistent and returns after each block, with evidence of LTA.
  4. Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
    WP:UAA. Use Twinkle and must state if username is promotional, disruptive, offensive or misleading.
  5. Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
    WP:ANI. Must have evidence of the PAs and only report if it is persistent and/or you don't think you can handle it yourself and thus need admin help.
  6. Where and how should an edit war be reported?
    WP:AN/EW. Link to the article where the edit war is going on.
  7. Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
    WP:BLP/N. Link to the article where the violations are taking place, violations must be significant.

Part 5: Arctic Kangaroo 09:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

 Part 5 complete Mediran (tc) 10:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Part 6 - Theory in practice (30%)

Marks: 16
Marks obtained: (8)(2)(0.999...) + 11 - 20/2 - 1
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. [16]
  2. [17]
  3. [18]

Part 6 Q1: Arctic Kangaroo 09:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 That's right

2. Find and revert two good faith edits, and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.
  1. [19] Arctic Kangaroo 10:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  2. [20] Arctic Kangaroo 10:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 That's right I like that warning with a wink.

3. Correctly report two users (either AIV or ANI). Give the diffs of your report below.
  1. [21]
  2. [22]

Part 6 Q3: Arctic Kangaroo 10:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 That's right

4. Correctly request the protection of two articles; post the diffs of your requests below.
  1. [23]
  2. [24]

Part 6 Q4: Arctic Kangaroo 10:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 That's right

5. Correctly nominate one articles for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nominations below.
  1. [25]

Part 6 Q5: Arctic Kangaroo 10:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 that's right you should posted also the diff at your log but my bad for not adding it to the instructions. Nevertheless, I've found the diff and it was this.

6. Correctly report one username as a breache of policy.
  1. [26]

Part 6 Q6: Arctic Kangaroo 10:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 That's right

 Part 6 complete Mediran (tc) 07:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Final score

Part Total available Your score Percentage weighing Your percentage
1 5 5 25 25
2 11 11 15 15
3 7 7 10 7
4 8 8 10 10
5 7 7 10 10
6 16 16 30 30
TOTAL 54 54 100 100


Arctic Kangaroo is a CVU graduate!

Congratulations Arctic Kangaroo on your successful completion of this CVUA programme from the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with 100% and no issues came up during your 5 day monitoring period as well as in the rest of the course. Well done. Mediran (tc) 07:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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

CVU Academy.svg This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.

Hey Mediran, thanks for guiding me through this course. Is there any CVUA userbox that I can place on my userpage to thank you for this? Cheers! Face-smile.svg Arctic Kangaroo 09:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I've already created {{User CVUA/Graduate}}! Thanks, Mediran (tc) 10:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)