User:Illusion Flame/CVUA/64andtim
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.
- This course is designed to last, in total, about 2-3 weeks. This may be more or less, depending on your level of experience prior to the training.
The start
[edit]Twinkle
[edit]Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance 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.
- It appears you have Twinkle enabled. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 12:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Good faith and vandalism
[edit]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.
Comment: It appears you forgot this one @64andtim:. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ
- Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. You don't need to revert the example you find, and I am happy for you to use previous undos in your edit history if you wish.
- Good faith
- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Coromandel_Express&curid=8564769&diff=1158277701&oldid=1158277404 (might be unsourced but edit was done in good faith)
Correct Unsourced, but user was trying to help. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 12:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Daniel_J._O%27Donnell&curid=481110&diff=1158277689&oldid=1157217015 (an IP blanks an "unnecessary" controversy section)
- Maybe This could be a good-faith edit, but it is likely deletion vandalism from a user trying to hide controversies about themselves or someone they are close with. Deleting the portion, in this case, should have better reasoning and follow discussion on the talk page. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 12:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Holman&curid=4905361&diff=1158276767&oldid=1158275239
- Correct because the change just made the sentence wordy and was probably unnecessary. Definitely good faith though. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 12:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Vandalism
- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jesus_Walks&diff=prev&oldid=1157723325
- Correct. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 12:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Chapultepec&diff=prev&oldid=1157720800
- Correct. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 12:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Andaman_and_Nicobar_Islands&diff=next&oldid=1156980307
- Correct. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 12:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Warning and reporting
[edit]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?
- This is because their edit might or might not be done in good faith or it was likely an error, and we warn them to make sure they can edit constructively.
- When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
- This can be issued only when a user or an IP vandalizes after a final warning.
Incorrect, but this is a common misconception. Please review WP:UWUL again. 4-im warnings are to be used for severe/extreme vandalism that shows a user is contributing in bad faith. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 12:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?
- Sometimes warnings have a label in which they shouldn't be substituted, and I use Twinkle and/or RedWarn to warn users but I try to do it in a good faith manner.
- So should you substitute warning templates, yes or no? I donโt quite understand your response. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 12:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
- I would suggest reporting them to WP:AIV.
- Correct. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 12:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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.
- {{subst:Uw-vandalism1}} for unconstructive editing or vandalism.
- Correct. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 12:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{subst:Uw-disruptive1}} used when reverting a user's disruptive edit(s).
- Correct. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 12:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{subst:Uw-npov1}} when a user's edit doesn't adhere to WP:NPOV.
- Correct. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 12:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Make sure you keep in mind that some edits that seem like vandalism can be test edits. This happens when a new user is experimenting and makes accidental unconstructive edits. Generally, these should be treated with good faith, especially if it is their first time, and warned gently. The following templates are used for test edits: {{subst:uw-test1}}, {{subst:uw-test2}} and {{subst:uw-test3}}.
I just wanted to make sure you know about Special:RecentChanges, if you use the diff link in a different window or tab you can check a number of revisions much more easily. If you enable Hovercards in the Hover section of your preferences, you can view the diff by just hovering over it. Alternately, you can press control-F or command-F and search for "tag:". some edits get tagged for possible vandalism or section blanking.
- 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
Tools
[edit]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.
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). You already have this, so just read what it can do
UltraViolet/RedWarn is similar to Twinkle in nature. It allows you to revert edits and restore revisions with custom edit summaries. It also gives convenient links to warn and report users. RedWarn is the old version of UltraViolet, which is currently in beta. Please install RedWarn and let me know below:
- It works similar to Twinkle but I prefer using RedWarn over Twinkle (in which I might occasionally use the latter).
- Thats fine! I personally like Twinkle better as it has the ability to CSD and AFD pages. But I also really like RedWarn/UVโs user interface. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 21:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Dealing with difficult users
[edit]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?
- Thatโs because recognition and/or infamy can motivate vandalism to the vandals.
- Yep. By not recognizing their insults and ignoring them, vandals will probably get bored and stop. However, if we acknowledge it and argue with them, we are motivating them to continue. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 21:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you? Provide example diffs (donโt have to be yours) if possible.
- This user harassed me on this mobile diff (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1155757068) but this has since been reverted.
- This user asked me in good faith about why I reverted their edit but their edit was possibly unsourced (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1155107591)
- Looks good. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 21:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Protection and speedy deletion
[edit]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).
Protection
[edit]Please read the protection policy.
- In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
- This should be used if there be a significant amount of vandalism from IP addresses or new accounts that are not autoconfirmed yet, or to prevent sockpuppets of banned or blocked users from editing.
- In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?
- As an alternative to semi protection, it is used to suppress vandalism and certain other persistent problems while allowing all users to continue to submit edits.
When an IP address or a new user edits a page under this said protection, their edit(s) aren't visible to many Wikipedia readers or editors until said change is reviewed by a pending changes reviewer.
- In what circumstances should a page be extended confirmed protected?
- Should semi protection be ineffective, admins may use 30/500 protection to prevent further disruption (vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) However, this should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that hasnโt occurred yet, nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered/new users in valid content disputes.
- In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
- As an alternative to user blocking, the protection policy provides an alternative approach as admins have the discretion to temporarily fully protect an article to stop an edit war.
When protecting a page because of a content dispute, the admins should avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, including vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. They should remain uninvolved while exercising their discretion on whether applying protection to the article, or to an older, stable and pre-edit-war version.
- In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
- This creation protection is useful for pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated, and such protection is case-sensitive.
- In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
- They should only be semi-protected for a limited duration if there is severe vandalism. The same could apply to user talk pages.
- All of the above appear to be correct, but try not to directly copy from the policy page. The goal is to convince me you understand the policies. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 22:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi, extended confirmed, or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.
- You donโt have to do this. It can be hard to find a page that needs protection without being involved. I believe you understand the criteria per your answers above. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 22:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
[edit]Please read WP:CSD.
- In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?
- If there was obvious vandalism in which an admin could quickly delete it and notify the user.
- 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.
- User:Health Frantic via CSD G11 ({{db-spamuser}})
- Draft:Health Frantic via G11 ({{db-spam}})
Comment: they were both deleted because of advertising or promotion.
- What speedy deletion criteria do you think is the most important and why? (There are no wrong answers)
- {{db-vandalism}} should there be pure vandalism on the article.
- Correct! - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 14:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Usernames
[edit]Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol the User creation log to check for new users with inappropriate usernames. There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed:
- Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, usernames that impersonate other people, or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
- Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.
- Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
- Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.
Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particluar attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.
- Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).
- DJohnson
- A misleading username because this might impersonate a real person and could lead to a block unless if verified through an official Wikimedia email.
- Definitely could be impersonation, or a WP:REALNAME.
- LMedicalCentre
- This is a promotional username in which the username promotes a medical center, which is generally not allowed on Wikipedia.
- Yep. We would probably wait to see if their edits are promotional before blocking or, alternatively, informing them on their talk page. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 22:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Fuqudik
- A disruptive username that has bad words and might have outright intent to disrupt Wikipedia. Such users should be blocked indefinitely by an administrator.
- Yep. Definitely disruptive. Account will be blocked, but quality of edits determines if the block is soft or hard. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 22:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- ColesStaff
- A promotional username which represents the staff of a group that goes against the username policy.
- Correct. Accounts are 1 per person, not for groups of staff to use. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 22:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- ~~~~
- A misleading username because such tildes should use a signature representing a unique username, not the tildes themselves.
- Right again.
- 172.295.64.27
- Possibly a misleading username because if this IP address doesn't exist and was used as a Wikipedia username, then they would be notified that they would have to change their username.
- I agree.
- Bieberisgay
- A disruptive username because it contains Justin Bieber's last name and the other words imply that he is gay in which is not generally allowed on the username policy.
- Correct. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 22:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Practice
[edit]Congratulations, now have mastered the "basics" so we can move on. Please complete the following practice test, to help prepare for the final exam.
The following 3 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!
Scenario 1
[edit]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?
- This would technically be considered good faith but because these statements were probably original research and/or unsourced, I would revert it using a "good faith" rollback option.
- Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?
- WP:OR because the statements probably contain original research.
- What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?
- {{uw-nor1}}
- 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?
- I might not be blocked in this case because I am restoring the version in which the article doesnโt contain original research which is against policy.
- Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}}?
- {{IPvandal}}
- What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
- Persistent addition of unsourced content; IP adds original research to Justin Bieber.
- This probably wouldnโt be considered original research, but definitely persistent addition of unsourced content. If repeated, after warning, we can assume bad faith and call this vandalism. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 22:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Scenario 2
[edit]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?
- It would be considered vandalism since the user might not have any good faith if at all.
- What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?
- {{uw-disruptive1}}
- Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?
- The red rollback vandal option.
- 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?
- It wouldnโt be appropriate. Reverting their edit first and warn a final warning to them would be more appropriate in this case.
- If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?
- If the account was used only for vandalism, they should be indefinitely blocked.
- Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}}?
- {{vandal}}
- What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
- Disruptive editing after final warning
- A more appropriate warning/description would be test edits, not disruptive editing, although it is disruptive . We also donโt always have to use all of the warnings. If the vandalism continues after 3, especially if itโs an account, you can usually report to AIV. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 22:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Scenario 3
[edit]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?
- I wouldnโt revert.
- You should definitely revert it. They are attempting to promote. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 22:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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?
- {{db-g11}}
- Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?
- {{uw-username}} with |reason=it represents a company which is generally against policy}}
- Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?
- I probably wouldn't report the user to UAA if they chose to change their username.
Results
[edit]Overall, pretty good. You do need to remember that some edits may seem like vandalism, but are actually tests. Are you ready to begin the final? - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 22:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Rollback
[edit]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.
- Yep! It appears you forgot to do the CSD section above. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 22:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.
- The rollback option should generally be used for reverting obvious vandalism, not for reverting good faith edits as the feature only has a "generic" edit summary and misuse could result in your rollback rights being revoked.
- I will advise you further about requesting rollback. If approved follow below, you can use the following tools
-
- I would finished this course before requesting rollback. Feel free to still read about the tools though. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 22:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Rollback
[edit]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.
Huggle
[edit]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.
AntiVandal
[edit]AntiVandal is a web-based counter-vandalism tool. It is similar to Huggle in interface and usage, though it is a more lightweight version. After the script is installed, beside your preferences button, there will now be a link which says "AntiVandal". Clicking this will activate the script. It allows you to warn and revert edits in one click. It also allows you to quickly report users to WP:AIV and WP:UAA.
SWViewer
[edit]SWViewer (direct link) is a user-friendly webapp that is used to detect and revert vandalism, spam, and other types of unconstructive edits made at various Wikimedia projects. With a simple and intuitive UI, you can monitor changes in real-time. In doing so, it provides a lot of features, such as the ability to rollback edits, warn users, tag pages with speedy deletion, and edit source on the page.
Final Exam
[edit]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. I have emailed you the first part of the test. It will feel challenging, and may take a while. Be sure you click both submit buttons when filling out the form. Please begin at only once you have finished all of the lessons above and have reviewed all of my suggestions/responses to your answers.
GOOD LUCK!
Part 1 - Theory/knowledge test (50%)
[edit]Test will be emailed to you when youโre ready for it. It will be in Google Form format.
Part 2 - Theory/knowledge in practice (50%)
[edit]- 1. Find and revert 10 instances of vandalism (by different editors on different pages), and appropriately warn the editor. Please give the diffs of the revert and the warning below.
- Diff: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=The_pen_is_mightier_than_the_sword&diff=prev&oldid=1158835672 Warning: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:101.0.38.165&oldid=1158835764
- Diff: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Syngman_Rhee&diff=prev&oldid=1158837124 Warning: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:87.210.218.208&oldid=1158837160
- Diff: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sahal_Abdul_Samad&diff=prev&oldid=1158838055 Warning: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Manju_MI&oldid=1158838090
- Diff: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sibling&diff=prev&oldid=1158878605 Warning: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Axoloooootl&diff=prev&oldid=1158878627
- Diff: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Nose&diff=prev&oldid=1159078560 Warning: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:110.145.241.198&diff=prev&oldid=1159078635
- Diff: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Christianity_in_the_1st_century&diff=prev&oldid=1158932206 Warning: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:58.96.158.191&diff=prev&oldid=1158932225
- Diff: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Suffolk&diff=prev&oldid=1159145642 Warning: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2A02:C7F:3AC7:9700:7531:B27C:AAF7:9520&oldid=1159145677
- Diff: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Bog&diff=prev&oldid=1159234616 Warning: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2603:6080:CB44:ED00:6115:C44E:9CE9:4BBC&oldid=1159234676
- Diff: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=John_Batman&diff=prev&oldid=1159239187 Warning: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:58.96.158.213&oldid=1159239243
- Diff: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Academy&diff=prev&oldid=1159034368 Warning: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:216.26.125.65&diff=prev&oldid=1159034393
- Very good job. I agree with all of your reverts and warnings. +20 points. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 20:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- 2. Find and revert 3 good faith edits, and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your revert and warn/welcome below.
- Diff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1158906301 Warning: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1158906391
- I agree with your revert. It this case, as there were several issues with the edit, a custom message would have been more appropriate. Keep in mind WP:MOS issues too. Iโll give you credit for it, this is a tough case. +2 - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 20:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Diff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1158915502 Warning: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:I%27m_a_Wikipedia,_nerd&oldid=1158915563
- I agree with your revert, but once again think a custom warning would have been appropriate. There are some NPOV concerns, but also the addition of unsourced content. A custom warning explaining both would have been best, but Iโll give you credit as it was acceptable. +2 points. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 20:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Diff: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Lilly_Hiatt&diff=prev&oldid=1158931098 Warning: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.139.121.236&oldid=1158931161
- I agree. +2 - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 20:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- 3. Correctly report 4 users to AIV. Give the diffs of your report below.
- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1159078898
- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1159539488
- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1159387575
- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1159078898
- Correct for all! - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 20:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- 4. Correctly request the protection of two articles; post the diffs of your requests below.
Exempt from this section of the exam.
- 5. Correctly nominate 3 pages (at least 1 article) for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nominations below.
- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:StewartMooreRealEstate&diff=prev&oldid=1159081666
- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User%3ARadwano2&diff=1159143040&oldid=1159139376
- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Draft:AL_NASSR_VS_PSG_(JAPAN_TOUR)&diff=prev&oldid=1159341547
- Good! - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 20:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- 6. Correctly report 3 usernames as a breach of policy.
- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=1159017595 (Lifeswoop was reported for promotional username and edits)
- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=1159081901 (reported for promotional username)
- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=1158917622 (contained the S word so it was reported)
- Yep, I agree. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 20:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please ping be below once you finish the final exam so I can begin grading it.
Final score
[edit]| Part | Total available | Your score |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 50 | 41 |
| 2 | 50 | 50 |
| TOTAL | 100 | 91 |
Passage rate: 91%
Completion
[edit]As a graduate you are entitled to display the following 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. |
{{subst:Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Graduate|1=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 '''''91'''''%. Well done and congratulations again. ~~~~}}
|
|
CVU Academy Graduate |
| 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 91%. Well done and congratulations again. If you chose to request rollback, you may link your lessons here on your request. - ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐)๐ฅ 21:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC) |