User talk:Blaze Wolf/CVUA/CpX41

Learn more about this page

Hello, and welcome! Here is where I will help you become a vandal fighter. When I post an assignment, please respond under the assignment (or in a table, if there is one). In some exercises I will ask you to provide "diffs". See Help:Diffs for how to do this.

Tools

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Before we start, I wanted to show you some useful tools for counter-vandalism work which can be used by any editor. You can use all of these, none of these, or some of these. I don't mind, these links are just for your convenience. If you do use any of these I will teach you how to use them. You may have already installed some of these in the past.

Twinkle

Twinkle is a very popular gadget which is helpful for a variety of tasks. To install it, go here and tick the box that says Twinkle. Then scroll down to the bottom of the page and click "save". When you refresh the page, a "TW" tab will be available on every page, next to the "More" tab. Scrolling over the TW tab will show a list of modules you can use on the particular page. Twinkle has a large number of useful modules, including but not limited to, one which can be used to warn users, one which can be used to request page protection, one which can be used to suggest a page is deleted, and many many more helpful features. It also adds a non-admin "rollback" feature on all diff pages. I highly suggest you enable Twinkle, as it's incredibly useful and poses no risk of harming your account.

RedWarn/Ultraviolet

RedWarn and Ultraviolet are also very popular tools that are helpful with anti-vandalism. To install RedWarn, simply go to WP:RW/GET and follow the instructions there. To install Ultraviolet, simply go to WP:UV/GET and follow the instructions there. Do note, however, that Ultraviolet is currently in a very early beta so certain features may be missing or not work properly, so install it at your own risk. If you do decide to use it I will teach you how to use it using my alt account User:Blaze Fire Wolf since it is currently not fully compatible with RedWarn. Both tools are similar to Twinkle, however, they both mostly focus on tools to aid in anti-vandalism. When you go to any page, in the top right hand corner of the actual page you will see a series of icons. Hovering over each one will tell you what it does. When viewing a diff it has a number of pre-set rollback reasons, and 2 in which you can add an additional reason, one for assuming good faith, and another for just rollback with reason. I highly suggest using these along with Twinkle as RedWarn and Ultraviolet's interface is much simpler than Twinkle's, and Twinkle is able to fill in the gaps of features not yet in either tool.

Now that you've read these, reply below with which scripts you installed/what you signed up for. I don't mind how many you installed, or if you installed none, it's just so I know and can set tasks using those scripts. Also note that there are many more advanced scripts out there, but they'll only be available to you when you have more experience.

I have installed both RedWarn and Twinkle, as I want to learn how to work with both tools. Until now I have made reversions and placed warning templates manually. I have a large number of gadgets enabled, as well as two beta features. CpX41 (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good! I'll post the next section in about an hour when I'm home (mobile editing SUCKS) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 19:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good faith and vandalism

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.

The difference between good faith edits and vandalizing edits is the intentions behind the edit: Often an editor wants to improve an article, but is unaware of the existing policies and guidelines, or may end up accidentally remove material or break the final rendering of the article page. Some edits are clearly vandalism, others need more context, such as the edit summary, history of the page (including page protection) and the editor, current events and topics.

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.

Special:Diff/1212965092 - Experiment or tried to clean up the infobox. - I would agree that this would be good faith, though not everyone would see it as such. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf}

Special:Diff/1139665865 - Addition of a single word, does not make a helpful edit on it's own. - Definitely good faith. In conversation it would probably be referred to as an "x86 processor" (or maybe even x86 processor), but the article already makes it clear that it's a CPU architecture and its unlikely to be confused with something else. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf}

Special:Diff/1217155934 - The bridge has collapsed, yet it still technically exists. - I would probably disagree with this, but this is kind of a difficult case. I disagree with it being good faith due to there being a hidden comment indicating that the tense has already been (or is currently being) discussed. But it's better to assume good faith and be wrong then assume vandalism and be wrong. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf}

Special:Diff/1217363089 - Image substitution vandalism. - Definitely vandalism, though usually I will look at the image that they replaced to ensure it's not an improvement. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf}

Special:Diff/1198900599 - While this is funny, it is still vandalism. (This is my favorite instance of vandalism that I have reverted) - WHEEZE while probably true this is most definitely vandalism. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf}

Special:Diff/1217365764 - Follows a known pattern. - Yeah something completely out of context like that is almost always vandalism. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf}

Very good! I see that you're also a bit of a computer nerd. I'll post the next section shortly CpX41. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 23:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Warning and reporting

When you use Twinkle or RedWarn/Ultraviolet 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

: Editors are warned to inform that their edits are considered damaging (among other things, WP:WARN has templates for a lot of cases) and why they have been reverted. Warnings also serve as a record, even if the talk page is blanked, the revision history can be checked manually or with user scripts. The warning level is incremented from assuming good faith and informing to giving a stern warning and reminding of the consequences in case such behavior continues.

: Editors who make a large number of clear, bad faith edits quickly, or in cases where the edits are especially damaging are issued immediate level 4 warnings.

: User warning templates should be substituted so that the warning left on the talk page remains the same even if the template is edited. Also, a lot of tools (such as RedWarn and ClueBot NG) rely on the hidden comment in the template to detect the current warning level. To substitute a template, subst: is added. For example, {{uw-warn}} is changed to {{subst:uw-warn}} to produce a substitute.

: The editor in question is reported to WP:AIV if vandalism continues after a level 4 warning has been issued. Edit warring, copyright violations and other issues have their own relevant noticeboards.

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

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.

{{uw-vandalism}} - Clear cases of vandalism, the most common template used.

{{uw-delete}} - Removal of content (includes section blanking) from Wikipedia. If the material is encyclopedic and correctly cited, it should bot be removed, without seeking consensus.

{{uw-spam}} - An encyclopedia is not Yellow Pages, and vice versa.

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 your revert	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff	My comment
1	Special:Diff/1218241560	Re-reverted many times, clearly does not like the edit filter having logs.	On its own this is simply just a WP:Test edit, however since they were reverted previously it becomes vandalism.
2	Special:Diff/1218230481	This one is obvious.	This is on the verge of being vandalism but as a one-off is simply disruptive editing.
3	Special:Diff/1218222373	I don't even know what the vandal meant.	This just looks like they hit the middle word in their phone's predictive text. Definitely vandalism.
4	Special:Diff/1218134469	This looks like something ClueBot NG would revert.	Yup that's typical vandalism.
5	Special:Diff/1218128196	Uncyclopedia editor misdirected to Wikipedia?	I doubt it. Probably just some bored kid.
6	Special:Diff/1218118243	This probably calls for a new edit filter.	Unless this happens often it does not. There are some very strict criteria for new edit filters (see WP:EF)
7	Special:Diff/1218113585	Possibly a test edit.	Test edits are not vandalism unless they repeatedly occur. This is explicitly mentioned in WP:VANDNOT.
8	Special:Diff/1218109249	This is another great idea for an edit filter.	See my above comment about edit filters. This seems like a one off.
9	Special:Diff/1218100903	Stopped after being cautioned.	Again probably just a bored schoolkid. Not vandalism on its own but with the IPs prior edits to the page it is vandalism.
10	Special:Diff/1218059045	No pattern to this one.	Yeah I would probably consider that vandalism.
11	Special:Diff/1218056558	Re-reverted once - caution template was enough to stop.	Why
12	Special:Diff/1218036424	Another case of nonsense.	Seems like just typical bored kid behavior.
13	Special:Diff/1217902506	Pretty obvious, this one.	I would probably revert this as vandalism but it can he hard to tell with stuff like this.
14	Special:Diff/1218568781	BLP vandalism, AIV report	Due to the edit you linked being revdel'd for BLP vandalism this was a good revert and report.
15	Special:Diff/1218564671	Vandalized after 4im and level 4, AIV report	Even on its own I'd consider that vandalism.

Dealing with trolls

Sometimes, disruptive users will try to harass and annoy you. In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, ignore them, and leave a note at WP:ANI. If they vandalize your user page or user talk page, revert them and ignore them. Please read WP:DENY and WP:RBI.

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Trolls and vandals want some form of feedback and recognition. By blocking, reverting and not responding to their actions there is no feedback and no more motivation, which will eventually lead to the bad actor loosing interest and they are more than likely to go somewhere else. Boredom is Wikipedia's secret weapon.

Very good. Don't feed the trolls. All they're looking for is attention. Wikipedia is the last place one should go to seek attention (editing Wikipedia is almost always a thankless work as most people don't even think about the work that goes into making Wikipedia).

How can you tell between a good faith user asking about why you reverted their edit, or a troll trying to be disruptive?

Good faith users are more likely to explain why their edit was valid while trolls (especially the experienced) generally tend to select their words in such a way as to waste time and cause unnecessary drama. For example, a good faith editor will not bring up WP:ANI and WP:ARB as the first response, either because they are new and do not know about it or are experienced and know what those are meant for.

Trolls are also generally not going to be very nice and will usually try and pin the blame on someone else rather than themself. Good faith users will be happy to learn and will happily take the blame rather than throw it on other users.

Shared IP tagging

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:").

You don't need to do anything here, just tell me when you have finished reading this.

Done

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 (I am not an admin); however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion or request protection. If you have Twinkle installed, you can use the Twinkle menu to request page protection or speedy deletion (the RPP or CSD options). If you have RedWarn installed, click the lock icon in the top right corner of the article. Currently RedWarn cannot request speedy deletion. If you want to report manually, either place a CSD tag on the page, or report at WP:RFPP.

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

Semi-protection should be used if the page is subject to vandalism or edit warring from IP editors or new accounts but at the same time should be kept available to edit for most users. Some high traffic pages or today's featured article also use this protection. Pages of blocked users may receive this protection.

Semi-protection of TFA is actually new! PReviously we didn't pre-emptively protect pages, however it made sense with Today's Featured Article cause it basically got semi protected anyway.

In what circumstances should a page be extended-confirmed protected?

Extended protection is to be implemented if semi-protection has proven ineffective and disruption continues. This form of protection is often used for controversial subjects, often pages about politics, cases where the Arbitration Committee decides it is appropriate or pages that are subject to constant vandalism from autoconfirmed editors and severe edit wars. It is also used on WP:RFA to restrict participation to established editors. Some templates are also protected this way where template protection would prove too restrictive. Some administrator's have this protection on their user and talk pages.

Extended-confirmed protection is mostly just used when there's socking going on which almost always involves semi-protected users.

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

This is an alternative form of protection that allows everyone to edit the page, but unregistered viewers will not see the edit until it is reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or a administrator, established editors have their edits automatically marked as reviewed. This form of protection is used on some pages that are on-and-off subjects of vandalism and WP:BLP pages.

Pending changes is kind of a weird one. Basically its only used if a page isn't vandalized enough for semi protection but enough that it needs some form of protection.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Full protection restricts editing only to administrators, bureaucrats and stewards. This form of protection is used on important pages, high-risk templates (where template protection is not enough) and in cases of extreme edit wars and vandalism, but this is temporary. Pages that are transcluded to a cascade-protected page automatically receive this protection.

Full protection is basically a worst case scenario where extended-confirmed is proven ineffective. Usually blocking (or ANI) is much more effective.

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

Salting is used to prevent re-creation of pages that have been deleted before and re-created multiple times. There are multiple levels of this form of protection, but for most cases editors should contact and administrator and get consensus to create a salted page.

BFDI is salt protected because it was continuously created by users even tho it has been proven time and time again that it is not notable.

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

Talk pages can receive protection in cases where they are subject to frequent vandalism or disruption from new or unregistered editors, this also applies to talk pages of blocked editors. In some cases, extended protection may be required.

We don't like semi-protecting talk pages because the entire point of a talk page is so people who are good-faith editors can request edits to be made to the article. Semi-protecting a talk page prevents this, however there are ways to still request an edit.

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

Done Semi-protection for Azrael requested and applied.

Very good! Looking at the article's revision history it definitely needed that protection.

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

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

Pages should be deleted if their creation serves no value to improving the encyclopedia, such as vandalism and test pages, or they have lost their value, for example, redirects that are no longer needed.

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

Later

Usernames

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).

User names that have problems should be reported to WP:UAA where an administrator will deal with it.

Nothing wrong at first, it would be reasonable to check the edit history to see if it is a good faith editor, or someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia

Im gonna give you a pass on this one. "DJohnson" could be short for Dwayne Johnson also known as "The Rock". However if you don't know who he is I then this is probably fine. =

Unless the user is renamed to something like John Smith at LMedicalCentre or John Smith (LMedicalCentre) this is a promotional user name. There, however, do exist users who disclose COI and request edits to be made on their behalf instead of editing themselves. Y

Very good!

This is a misleading user name. common cases are substitutions of 1, l, i, I and 0, O since most fonts have similar looking glyphs for those. Y

The capital i being substituted for a lowercase L can be hard to notice without a custom font or a unicode detector. VV would make it much more obvious.

This could be another case of a promotional user name, it depends on what the account is used for. It could also be a COI editor who would disclose their conflict of interest. N

This is an acceptable username as it follows the "Foo at Bar" format which you stated above.

This user name falls under the offensive type, and is not allowed. Y

Correct. This would possibly classify as a BLP violation and would probably be rev deleted and hidden.

This is misleading. Requesting adminship is a long and difficult process, and the community has very high standards. Joe is not a Sysop. Y

I believe this would actually be blockable (tho I haven't seen any usernames like this)

Unless a bot has been approved by the bot approvals group, this is not allowed and is misleading. Y

This is blockable as an unapproved bot.

Revision Deletion, Oversight, and Emergencies

Revision Deletion

Revision Deletion, commonly known as revdel, can be used to delete diffs. Revdel is used for copyright infringements, or serious cases of vandalism. See WP:Revdel and WP:CRD for more information.

Oversight

Oversight, also known as Suppression, is a powerful tool used by a very small number of users on Wikipedia. Oversight allows revisions to be removed from any means of usual access, even administrators can't see it. See WP:OS. Oversight is used in 5 cases: Removal of non-public personal information, Removal of potentially libelous information, either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel; or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision, Removal of copyright infringement, on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel, Hiding of blatant attack names on automated lists and logs, where this does not disrupt edit histories. (A blatant attack is one obviously intended to denigrate, threaten, libel, insult, or harass someone), or Hiding vandalism when normal administrator measures are insufficient. Also note that Oversight is sometimes used in hiding the personal information of minors, if it makes them easily identifiable.

Emergencies

As you patrol, you may come across a threat of physical harm to oneself or others. If this happens, Report this to the Wikimedia Foundation immediately.. As the essay WP:911 says: "Notify the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) office staff of the apparent suicide note or claim or threat of violence as soon as it is posted. Foundation staff have been the key responders in prior incidents. Contact can be made by emailing emergency@wikimedia.org, which forwards to several trained staff members who handle these incidents and are available to respond to emergency incidents even outside of normal business hours. This is the preferred method for reporting threats of harm to the Wikimedia Foundation; calling the office or emailing other addresses will simply delay the report from reaching the appropriate staff in a timely fashion. The WMF will take care of locating the user and contacting authorities. The WMF will nearly always immediately acknowledge your email, so that you know they're working on it." Request oversight for any comments like this as well, or if you can't get it oversighted quickly, get an admin to revision delete it, and then email Oversight.

Someone outs another user on the other user's userpage. What do you do?

Revert the edit in question with a discrete edit summary, for example, RV NOTHERE and email the oversight team, since it is the fastest and most discrete way to have an edit suppressed. The more time passes between the edit being made and it getting removed from history, the more people may potentially see it.

Very good! RedWarn and Ultraviolet actually have a button to email a diff to Oversight directly which is very useful, especially for cases in which a young user reveals personal information about themself (such as their age or real name), as usually Oversight almost immediately responds.

Someone says that they want to kill themselves on their user page. What do you do?

Time matters, all claims are to be taken seriously and left to the Wikimedia Foundation for evaluation. First, take note of the page, diff and any other details and inform the Wikimedia Foundation via email at emergency@wikimedia.org, if no reply is received within one hour, forward the email to ca@wikimedia.org, discretely contact an administrator (noticeboards are seen by a large number of readers and editors) and request oversight. It is worth keeping in mind that Stewards have oversight and administrator permissions on all WMF projects, so in some cases their assistance can be requested.

Excellent! I would probably try and tell them not to but really that's not something I should be handling (i've seen way too many friends actually do it).

A user puts a grossly offensive statement insulting the topic of an article, the article is a BLP. What do you do?

Revert the edit as a BLP issue, raise the issue on the BLP Noticeboard, in some cases revision deletion or suppression will have to be requested.

If it were obvious I would just go straight to an admin rather than BLPN. If not then BLPN is the place to go.

Progress

Here's a test so I can measure your progress in this area. After this, we'll move on to more advanced topics. The following scenarios each have multiple questions that are based on WP: VANDAL, WP:3RR, WP: REVERT, WP: BLOCK, WP: GAIV, WP: WARN, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, WP:911, WP:OS, WP:REVDEL and WP:UN. Good Luck!

Scenario 1

You encounter an IP disrupting the article on Homosexuality. They are adding extremely nasty homophobic slurs, and death threats.

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

This is vandalism, and is is not improving the encyclopedia in any way.

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

This stands in violation of the policies on civility, WP:vandalism, and is bad etiquette towards other editors and the reader.

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

If specific names, locations and details are provided, it might require to alert Wikimedia Foundation's emergency contacts, otherwise the bad edits need to be reverted.

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

There are special accounts to get the emergency and suppression processes stared. Generally, oversight needs to be requested if the edit is bad enough and keeping it has no editorial value.

Notes: I would also immediately report them to WP:AIV since they aren't contributing to the encyclopedia. I don't believe OS is relevant here as a simple revdel would do.

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?

This is possibly a test edit, which is considered vandalism as it does not improve the encyclopedia.

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

{{vandal}} is appropriate as we try to assume good faith.

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

Rollback or Rollback test edit button (RedWarn only)

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?

No, they have to have a level 4 template on their page and make a bad faith edit after that to be reported.

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

Yes, since it is a vandalism only account.

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

{{vandal}}, because this editor is logged in.

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

Vandalism past 4th warning.

Notes: RedWarn usually has a revert for test edits. In fact there's even a template for something that is a test edit being {{Uw-test1}} which is more appropriate for test edits than {{vandal}}. If they continued then I would most likely just warn them for disruptive editing up to the 4th warning in which I would report them to AIV.

Scenario 3

A user is adding unsourced comments to a BLP, but you're pretty sure that this person is acting in good faith. Do you revert?

Yes, even if they are acting in good faith they are still adding material that is not appropriately cited.

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

{{uw-unsourced1}}

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

Yes, they have been warned accordingly.

Notes: A better warning for this would be {{Uw-biog1}} as that is specific to BLPs. Always go with a more specific template rather than a general one if possible.

Scenario 4

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

Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle or RedWarn/Ultraviolet option (agf, neutral, vandalism) would you use?

Rollback or spam links (RedWarn only) option.

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

{{uw-spam1}}

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

Yes, A7 and possibly G11

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

{{uw-coi-username}}, specifically, and a note about the username policy. (John Smith at Laptops Inc would be acceptable)

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

Reasons 3 and 5 if the issue is not resolved with the user.

Notes: No notes here. All is good. However there are also warnings that encompass both spam and username into one warning (don't remember which one).

Scenario 5

You come across an account named "JohnIsAFag". You find that it's created the page "John Simmonds", which reads "John Simmonds is a guy born in 1991. He is still alive today, unfortunately, because he is an idiot. ahsjjdshhsd".

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

Yes, this is a G3 and G10 page.

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

WP:ATTACKNAME

The user puts the same insults in a different page 4 times, you have reverted 3 times already. Would another revert be a violation of WP:3RR?

Reverting vandalism does not towards the three revert rule. The tree revert rule is in place to slow down edit wars.

Note: All is correct. Not much else.

Results

Your score: 5/5 well done! I left some notes as advice for you.

Rollback

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.

Add topic