User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/AbhiMukh97

Hello, welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your academy page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me at User talk:CASSIOPEIA/CVUA/AbhiMukh97.

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.

Twinkle 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.

@CASSIOPEIA: I have already enabled it. AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 12:43, 18 August 2019 (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.

Answer:

Good faith edits are basically an aid towards Wikipedia's goal of being a free encyclopedia for everyone to use. A good faith edit is done by someone who is willing to improve the project, irrespective of it's nature(Constructive\Unconstructive). A good faith editor may be misguided or he might have lack of proper skills, but his intention will always be towards the improvement of Wikipedia.
Vandalisms are not like good faith edits, rather they are somewhat the opposite of them. Vandalisms are done solely for the purpose of disruption of Wikipedia goals. Vandalism is intentionally trying to frustrate the project's efforts by doing unconstructive and irrelevant edits continuously.

As it is mentioned above, there are little visible differences, we can find between a good faith edit and an edit that is vandalism. It all depends on the intent of the editor. It is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia, to assume that each and every editors' edits and comments are made in good faith until there is some obvious evidence of vandalism.

We must check the editors' edit history. If it looks like the editor has no (or a little) trace of doing possible vandalism, the edit should be assumed as a good faith edit(although reverted). But if the editor solely exists to disrupt Wikipedia, we have found a vandal. It can be difficult to judge intent, and very often suspicious edits may come from an account with no(or very little) previous edits, we must assume good faith. An example(from today) : Here removing the director's name doesn't seem like a good faith edit(but it can be). We can't tag it as vandalism although the edit seems suspicious.

The key here is intention. As long as a user intends to help Wikipedia, but the edits are might be disruptive, they are still considered a "good faith" editor and should be dealt with differently from a vandal. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia. Just because an edit adds incorrect or unsourced information does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal; they key is their intention. A non constructive edit is a little different from disruptive. A disruptive edit could be adding info without source (place unsourced warning message on editor's talk page), bold phrases which not adhere to MOS:BOLD guidelines and etc. However, non-constructive would have the indication (not always though) of doing something once should not do. Looking into the editors' contribution log history is a good way to find out. Do note, if an editor remove the content of a page without edit summary, and we are not sure if it is a vandalism act (your example above: for there is no source to support the existing info), we could place "remove of content, blanking" warning level 1 - {{subst:uw-delete1}} on editor's talk page instead. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I was not mentioning it as a vandalism edit, but as a suspicious one. Although he happened to omit important and genuine information from page. I didn't tag that as vandalism, because it was the only edit he did on Wikipedia(as of now). I was just trying to portray the difficulty in finding visual difference between good faith edit and vandalism giving more focus on intent. AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 07:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If you tell me to classify this, I would rather put this in Test Edit class for bing the first ever edit. AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 08:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

1 : I don't think it was unconstructive, but it's certainly unhelpful.

It is not a vandalism edit. The content of the page doesn't state the subject is a internet personality nor any source was provided to support the content. For unsouced content, it is OK for editor to remove them from the page as content in the article should be supported by source (especially article of living person) for verification. I would not revert the edit. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The page Bhad Bhabie also mentions her as an internet personality with her song getting a place in the Billboard Hot 100. The page also cites some sources that made me convinced about the verifiability. That's why I thought reverting it would be better. However, I'll keep your suggestion in mind.AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 08:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

2 : Just a minor misconception.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

3 : Just a minor edit, but unhelpful.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Answer:

1 : Although I reverted it assuming good faith(that was the first edit on that page by the editor. So, I assumed good faith), it looked like he was vandalising (by page hijacking) in his later edits. So, I listed it as vandalism here.

. I am not sure what do you meant by "he was vandalising in his later edits" as the editor has only 2 edits in his contribution log and this is their second edit and their first was on March - see [1]. The edit made is considered vandalism (irregardless is the editor's first or subsequent edits) as the editor changed the name of the article/subject. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if it's just me Thinking much or if it's true, but I think that the subsequent edits on that page were by the same user(or a user with same motive). I have no valid proof for that but the similarities in their edits.AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 07:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

2 : Looks like minor disruption until the contributions are checked (see)

.Good that you go through the editors' recent vandalism edit and placed warning messages. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

3 section blanking with many other disruptions on other pages (see)

. It is a vandalism edit, however, you also remove the a lot of "sourced content" when you revert the edit. Pls go back to the page and resintate the sourced content to its original place if they have not been restored by other editor. Pleas check what you have revert next time. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

In this case, he just copied some contents from the "History" part and pasted it randomly on the "Objectives" part. Fortunately, I was working on that article at that time and that helped me to revert the article without losing any valid information(hopefully). I checked before reverting as it seemed to be a large edit with citations. AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 07:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

P.S: I re-checked and found no visible issues for the revert I've done. However, I'll be more cautious before reverting from further on. AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 07:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97 Good day. Any question regrading the assignment, please let me know here. For other questions not relating to the assignments, ping me on the talk page of this subpage Here. See above the first assignment. Ping me here when you are done and ready for review. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I have completed my assignment. Sincerely, AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 15:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97 See the above review and comment and let me know if you have any questions. If you dont have question and ready to move to next assignment, then pls inform. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Sorry to bother you but, I have a little question about the differences in edits I put here. Can I put other Users reversions too? Or I have to show the reverts that were done solely by myself? Other than that, I think I'm ready. AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 08:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97, The assignment is based your work and not others. I have posted assignment 2 below. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've already started working on my project. Sincerely, AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 12:23, 19 August 2019 (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

(1) Why do we warn users?

Answer: Warning the editors is a very helpful method to educate, guide and motivate the editors towards the goal of Wikipedia. Warning an editor will let them know that they are not editing according to Wikipedia's policies, in case they don't realize that. Wikipedia invites everyone to edit, and there is no requirement for them to read through all the policies before they begin. Warning an editor has many advantages :

Issuing warnings(of increasing levels of severity) creates records of the editor being informed properly.
It helps the patrollers and counter-vandalism volunteers to recognise a repeat offender, seeing their talk page.
It offers constructive criticism on edits and explains why their edits have been reverted.
It also helps the editor to communicate, if they are facing any problems related to Wikipedia, through proper channel.
It helps admins to decide if an editor should be blocked or not(Constant receipt of severe warnings may lead to block).

We generally use warning templates to warn users, on their talk page. It is more convenient and practical to use templates. However, adding constructive criticism, within the template message, is better if possible.

As mentioned above, there are certain levels in some types of template warnings(vandalism, disruptive editing etc). The warning levels show the level of severity and change the tone for warning the editor. There is no rule to increase the warning level serially or to start with level 1(level 3 warning may be the first-ever warning received by an editor, depending on their edits).

very good.Yes, the purpose is to "educate" the editors on constructive editing, especially those who are new to Wikipedia and to "deter" them of such actions with stronger warnings leads up to a block. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

(2) When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

Answer: According to WP:UWLEVELS, 4im assumes bad faith, and is only reserved for the issues of 'gross, extreme, or numerous vandalism'. In the case of excessive or continuous disruption from a user or specific IP, this is issued as the only warning(final warning ordering to stop immediately otherwise will be blocked without further notice) to the editor.

Excessive disruption includes outrageously offensive stuff, like inserting vulgar, abusive or other highly defamatory text or media into a page.
Continuous disruptions include a long history of adding obvious vandalism. Another example would be if someone reverted an obvious piece of vandalism, and the vandaliser reverted it or vandalised it again and again(looks somewhat like edit war) before any lower level of warning is given.

The 4im warning becomes necessary when an editor shows no sign of good faith in their edits and continues to vandalize one or more Wikipedia pages, to mark them for being reported to Wikipedia:AIV if vandalised further.

The 4im warning must be used only after making sure that :

Edits by the user are clear cases of vandalism, and doesn't have any good faith behind it.
The user is a persistent vandaliser showing no intention of stopping, continuously and deliberately vandalizing Wikipedia.

Very well. 4im is only for widespread and particularly egregious vandalism such as vandalism only account and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: It is always a good idea to substitute a template while placing it on a user's talk page in order to prevent changes on template message when changes to template documentation are made. For example, if an unsubstituted warning template gets vandalized, all talk pages containing the template will reflect the recent changes. It can mislead new users as well as the patrollers.

Adding subst: after the opening braces and before the template name will substitute the recent template message on the pages used. The format for substitution is {{subst:<template>}}.

Example: To substitute {{uw-test1}} we have to write {{subst:uw-test1}}.

I do recommend "always" subst and not just a good idea to ensure that the message on the talk page will not change even if the template is changed. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That's what I was intending to say. I think I didn't express myself clearly. However, I will remember your suggestion. And try to abide by it. Thanks, AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 12:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: I should report that user to WP:AIV, and seek assistance from an administrator. This can be done manually but it's more efficient to use Twinkle.

This can be done using TWINKLE as follows:

Go to user's talk page and select ARV from TWINKLEs' dropdown list.
Select the AIV option, providing the page where the latest vandalism occurred
Tick the box for 'Vandalism after a level 4 or 4im' box.
Submit the query

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

(5) Please give examples and please do the substitution (using {{Tlsubst|''name of template''}}) of three different warnings with three different levels (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.

Answer i: {{subst:uw-delete2}} :

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.

This should be used as a gentle reminder against deletion of content or template from Wikipedia pages. It's just a caution note and assumes no faith. This is the most commonly used warning against content deletion and revolves around the goal to guide the editor.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Answer ii: {{subst:uw-disruptive3}} :

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

This should be used as a warning message to the editor and notify him against disruptive editing. This should be used in cases, where the editor has severely disrupted one or more pages. It assumes bad faith and generally depicts a higher level of disruption and includes a warning of being blocked.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Answer iii: {{subst:uw-spam4im}} :

This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines.

This is the only warning that an editor receives, regarding his recent persistent spammings on Wikipedia pages, and should be used as the last resort to stop the editor by a warning. This should be used carefully, after making sure that the editor is causing persistent disruption. Further disruption after the receipt of this warning may lead to blockage(by an admin).

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97 Greetings. Pleas see assignment 2 above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: If I"ve done the substitutions in the question 5 properly, I want it reviewed. If it's wrong, please tell me know how to do it properly. Sincerely, AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 16:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97 Hi, I noticed you ping earlier but I was doing other Wikipedia work. You could use "u", "re" or "ping" to ping editors. However, if you need to ping more than one editor in the same message then use "ping" then "/" username 1 , then "/" then user name 2 so far and so on. I am off to work soon, and will review your assignment later of the day. Cheer

AbhiMukh97 Hi, Pls note that I have moved the page to User:CASSIOPEIA/CVUA/AbhiMukh97 as I forgot to add User: in the beginning. Pls save this page in your computer. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the disturbance, I thought that I didn't ping properly. I'll save this new page. Thanks, AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 06:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97 I am here to help. Please do not feel you are disrupting me. If you have any questions, just fire away. I have reviewed you Assignment 2 and you did very well. Pls see my comment above and if you have any questions, pls let me know. If not and you are ready for the next assignment, then let me know. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: I have no questions but a doubt, it's about the 4im warning. It says that it's the only warning that an editor receives, regarding his severe disruptions. It means that it's the first and the last warning and we don't need to warn the user with low-level warnings before issuing 4im. For a previously warned user, lv 4 warning is enough, to report to WP:AIV if the disruption doesn't stop. Am I right? AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 12:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97, For severe cases of vandalism, wide spread across many articles in a short period of time, or on the same article repeatedly or severely of the repeated nature of the vandalism edits, we would just give only 4im warning without giving lvl 1-3 prior. Once the involved editor makes another vandalism edit after the 4im had given then we would report to AIV. Do note this will apply to wide spread severe cases for normally we give lvl 1 and increase accordingly. I would give lvl 2 if the vandalism is particle bad even is the 1st edit as we dont need to use lvl 1 then lvl 2 and etc but any lvl of warning could be the "1st" warning and we could jump from lvl 1 to lvl 3 if needed. Here is your judgement call after understand what constitute vandalism and the way you see fit (do apply wisely as our CVUA motto is civility, maturity and responsibility. Admin would usually blocked the editor with 31 hours and 72 hour for the sequence AIV report offence and increase the length of block accordingly. However, for vandalism only account or particular bad case, the will issue block indefinitely. I many cases even the counter vandalism editor gave lvl 1/2 warning and no AIV report (or no warning was given prior) and admin would give indef block. See examples here.

user 1 contribution log - block here
user 2 had only 1 edit and lvl 1 warning - block here
user 3 vandalism edit and get blocked here - [2]

Do not not only repeating vandalism edits would lead to a block, admin would block editors who make severe disruptive edits as well. Again it is a judgement call. Do note we usually would give lvl 1 first as we trying to educate the editor and deter vandalism edit. Last thing to note, we deal with the account (IP or registered user) and not the person who actually makes the edit as we do not know who makes that particular edit/who is behind the screen. It is the responsibility of the editor, either IP or registered user, not to let anyone use their devices when they edit Wikipedia or give the password to someone else. see here [3] and do read Wikipedia:My little brother did it. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Thanks for the quick response to my query, I've gone through all the explanation and examples. I've checked the difference in edits of the corresponding blocked editors from their contributions. I think I found the answer I was looking for. Thanks again.

P.s : I found Wikipedia:My little brother did it humerous yet instructive. I've also checked the talk page of the user accused for using multiple accounts abusively.

I'm ready to move on to my next assignment. Regards, AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 14:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

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.

Twinkle[edit]

Twinkle, as you know, is very useful. 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, WP:SPI, and other administrative noticeboards.

User creation log[edit]

In my early days of fighting vandalism on Wikipedia, one of the strategies I would use to find vandalism was to patrol the account creation log. This is located at Special:Log/newusers, and it logs every time a new user account is created on Wikipedia. You'll notice that new accounts with no contributions so far will have a red "contribs" links, whereas new accounts with some contributions will have blue "contribs" links. One great way not only to find vandalism, but welcome new users to Wikipedia is to check the blue contribs links that come in.

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.

STiki[edit]

STiki is an application that you download to your computer, and it provides you with diffs which either it or User:ClueBot NG have scored on their possibility of being uncontructive, and you are given the option to revert it as vandalism, revert it assuming good faith, mark it as innocent, or abstain from making a judgment on the diff. In order to use STiki, you need one of the following: (1) the rollback permission, (2) at least 1000 article edits (in the article namespace, not talk/user pages), or (3) special permission via Wikipedia talk:STiki.

Huggle[edit]

Huggle is also an application you download to your computer which presents you diffs (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. The rollback permission is required to use Huggle.

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

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment - If you report to AIV please include the diff	CASS' Comment
Example	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
1	test-edit 1	Gave {{subst:uw-test1}} : This was the users first edit. it is already mentioned Slapping (music) is a musical technique used with stringed instruments.	Y. Test edit means "the editor trying to make an edit to make sure they could actually make an edit in Wikipedia. However, since this is the editor first edit, we could place test edit message to educate and lead the editor to their sandbox to practice their edits. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
2	Likely test-edit	Gave {{subst:uw-test2}} : Removed Sources and blanked a portion. But I think it's a test edit.	N. Removed a sourced content could considered vandalism or disruptive and not a test edit at all. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
3	blanking-1	Gave {{subst:uw-delete2}} : Just a gentle reminder, not to remove content(in this case section blanking) from pages.	N Unsourced content can be deleted from article. Leave it and do nothing. However, do that the editor make vandalism edit and deleted it on their next edit -see here and removed here. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
4	Test-edit 2	Gave {{subst:uw-test1}} : This was the users first edit. (Added extra note: Please refrain from editing on mainspace, use the sandbox instead.)	Y. Same as answer 1. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
5	NPOV-1	Gave {{subst:uw-npov1}} : The edit didn't seem neutral to me, I found a mention of "Good guys" and other biased content.	N. The editor talking in the article, removed sourced article, and other. It is a vandalism edit. NPOV edit is like changing "Smith is an American boxer" to "Smith is the most handsome, sexy, best boxer not only in America but in the world." CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
6	Vandal-1	Gave him {{subst:uw-biog4im}} : Continued to add defaming controversial information after being warned for the same.	Y. You could have put van2/vandal3 but not 4im and it is not that serious yet. See note below. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
7	Vandal-2	Gave {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} : Continued to add irrelevant information persistently. Reported to AIV (Report-1), though has been warned only once(4im, by me).	Y.That is good one as multiple vandalism edits and deleted sources content. Editor has been blocked for 12 hrs. - see User talk:67.45.96.17 CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
8	Vandal-3	Gave {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} : But saw that the editor has already received {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} for persistent disruptions on other pages. Immediately tried to report to AIV. But somebody already reported. So added my opinion on the already submitted report as an extension, mentioning the newly vandalised page.	Y. Well done. Editor has been blocked for 1 week - see User talk:73.220.242.212. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
9	Test edit-3	Gave {{subst:uw-test1}} : First-ever edit. Requested him to not self promote, as it appears from the edit summary.	N. See the name of the editor and the edit summary. It is considered disruptive edit and if editor continues in such fashion then place vandal message. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
10	Disruptive-1	Gave {{subst:uw-disruptive3}} : Seeing from the contributions, it seems it's vandalism only account. Reported to AIV (Report-2)	N. it is a Silly vandalism edit. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
11	Vandal-4	Gave {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} : It's sure that the edits weren't in good faith. Posing one's individual opinions is not what Wikipedia articles are built for.	Y I would place vandal 1 or vandal 2. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
12	Disruptive-2 at first then, Vandal-5	Gave {{subst:uw-disruptive2}} : This was the first-ever edit, though not in good faith. Later continued to vandalise Wikipedia, so gave {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} for the disruptions(Contrib). Continued disrupting, so reported to AIV (Report-3).	Y. Edits have been removed from history page by Admin (means the nature of the edits are very bad) for such I cant view them - see [4]. Since they have been removed by admin, I will take your judgement and actions are right. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
13	Disruptive-3	Gave {{subst:uw-biog2}} : First edit. I think it's not in good faith. So this warning instead of any test warnings.	Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
14	Blanking-2	Gave {{subst:uw-delete2}} : Removed content and references. Suggested to talk with other editors, on the corresponding talk page, before doing so.	Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
15	Dispuptive-4 then Vandal-6	Gave {{subst:uw-delete2}} : First edit, but section blanked. Next edit was section blanking too, so gave him {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}}. Reported to AIV (Report-4)for disruptive editing. Made legal threats after that.	Y. Well done. - see User talk:Chatterbox1880 editor has been indef blocked. The other 2 IP user are WP:SOCK and have been blocked - see User talk:2603:9001:2704:2FEB:805F:C049:12A5:9905 and User talk:2603:9001:2704:2FEB:1F3:DD1F:71FC:6A77. Reporting SOCK and Personal treats are in other assignment and we will look into that when in due time.
16	Test-edit	Gave {{subst:uw-test1}} : Although it's not the first edit. But he hasn't been warned before.	N. editor contribution log - [5] shows that is a delibrate vandalism edit by changing the floor level a few times and one can falls from "zero" floor - it is the editor's "intention" (Assignment 1) here show the editor not here to "test" if they could make and edit but to vandalize. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
17	Test-edit	Gave {{subst:uw-test1}} : I think it's a test edit.	N. This is the third edit made by the IP user. It is considered } {Tlsubst\|uw-unsourced}}
18	Test-edit	Gave {{subst:uw-test1}} : I think it's a test edit.	Y.Even thought I have mentioned if unsouced info is deleted from article, we will not interface with it but if a big chunk of unsourced info is deleted by new user (first edit), do place {{subst:uw-delete}}. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
19	Test-edit	Gave {{subst:uw-test1}} : I think it's a test edit. Although he added something like a name of a person.	N. To replace a sport club name to a person, does not seem a test edit "trying to test if the editor could make an edit" but a vandalism edit - again, we have go ask ourselves what is the intention of the editor? - back to Assignment 1 here again. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
20	Test edit	Gave {{subst:uw-test1}} : I think it's a test edit. Self revert, as you said.	Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
21	Test edit	Gave {{subst:uw-test1}} : I think it's a test edit.	N A test edit usually does not come with a few sentences and would not add the message back (see 4th edit) and do note the deletion of the 1st edit which was reverted by Bot. It is considered {{subst:uw-unsourced}} - see [6]
22	Test Edit	Gave {{subst:uw-test1}} : I think it's a test edit.	Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97 Good day. You need to apply the what you learn into practice for this assignment. Twinkle does not have all the templates and if Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. You have not reach the requirements needed to use other tools (user right) yet so it might take a little time/effort to work on this assignment. Most participants find this assignment a little difficult and if you need help do let me know. When you have done with the assignment and want me to review them, pls ping me. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: I have done my assignment. Please review. Thanks, AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 14:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97 Greetings. See my comment above. 3 things to note (1) If an editor remove unsouced content, leave it and do nothing as content should support by source(s). (2) Test edit - is edit made by editor on their first or second edit where they make the edit to see if they actually could make an edit in Wikipedia. We often see the editor place "hi/hello/ remove or add a character on their first edit and sometime the self revert/remove/add back what they have made. (3) Even thought vandalism message and tool in English Wikipedia is considered a "flexible system" where we would place the level as we see vandal fighters see fix, for vandal that is not that serious and not prolific, we still use level 1 first and increase the level on subsequent vandal edit of the same nature. Some admin will not block editors if warning messages are not enough. Pls provide another 2 "text edit" examples below so we could be assured you understand what actual test edit meaning. (note: In Wikipedia we use neutral gender pronounce if we do know the gender of the editor so an editor we use "they/them/their". Hope this clear out why I put "their/they" when there is only one editor I mentioned.). Let me know if you have any questions of the assignment. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Most of my warning messages were not based on their current edit but, the contributions. When I found something supposedly vandalism I reverted it immediately and tried looking on their past edits in their contribution. If it's their first or second edit, I tried not to use the term "vandalism" as I thought it could affect their Well intentions, if any. I didn't consider section blanking as vandalism until they did it again, and tried to find other ways to educate. However, I understood what you've said and will keep that in mind. AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 11:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97 question/answer 6, if you look at the editor contribution log - see here [7] and the talk page User talk:84.209.35.204, there is one warning in December 2018 and one warning in August 2019 prior yours. The contribution log show the edits on Divya Bharti were not vandalism edits. So to based on one warning on August and jumps to 4im which the edit is not very serious vandalism is a little hash until the edit nature is very bad. You would provide 4im or lvl 4 warning for first warning of the month if the editor have been warned or blocked many times in the past and have been advised how to prevent the same mistakes and still continues to do that same - see example User talk:Powderkegg and User talk:WWEFan1926. thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

My fault. However, it looked like the editor had some kind of grudge against Madhuri Dixit. I thought giving 4im will stop the editor from further disruptions.AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 13:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I have provided another 2 "text edit" examples in the table above. Please review. Thanks, AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 13:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97 See comment on exercise 16 & 17 (test edit). Here are 2 examples of test edits (1) changed and self revert by editor user 2604:3D08:437E:D340:D21:B166:66B1:72D0 on Abbotsford Police Department. (2) user 42.111.76.118 adding a few garish before sub section in Lymph on their "first edit". If user make the second edit in same fashion again after receiving the warning then it would consider a vandalism edit. Hope the example help and pleae provide additional 2 more test edits and add on exercise 18 and 19 on the above table. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I've already provided them. AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 04:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97 See comment above. Another example for test edit - [8] user self revert their edit after testing on the first edit. Let me know if you have any question or you are ready to move to next assignment. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I think I should stay in this assignment for now and provide some valid test edits and vandalism in the table above. If you dont mind. AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 05:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97 OK then do provide 2 more test edits exercise then. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I've provided it. Please review. AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 07:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97 see comment above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I have provided a differance. Please review it. I wish to move on to our next assignment. I'll try to provide further examples on the talk page for suggestions( I think it'll take some time to properly differentiate). Thanks, AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 07:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97 Good - see review above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Shared IP tagging[edit]

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:").

Hi AbhiMukh97, Posted Assignment 4 above. No exercises for this assignment but only some reading material. Once you have done reading, pls let me know so I would post Assignment 5 for you. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I have read the related materials. Wish to move to next assignment. AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 01:59, 25 August 2019 (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?

Answer: Because all they are seeking is a way to get recognition; if we engage with them, we are giving them what they crave, and actually encouraging them to create more disruption and get what they are looking for. Recognition is a motivation for vandalism. They want to be infamous by interrupting and frustrating the Wikipedia project and community, as they usually suffer from social alienation. Instead, we want to make it clear that what they are doing is not a big deal, it's easily undone, and they are not going to get a personal response from us for their efforts. That's why we - "don't feed the trolls".

. If editor asks questions, we should reply but in a mechanical way and not engaging in their troll behaviour, repeating the same mechanical answer if needed. The main point/goal of the trolls is that they want attention. We dont feed them and dont get mad by denying them the recognition that they seek is critical to countering them. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: I think, it's the same as the difference in between a good-faith edit and a disruptive one, we have to focus on the "intent" - are they making an actual point, or have they just come to troll?

Most of the time, a good-faith editor would avoid a personal attack. Sometimes they might lose their temper, some of them even don't know our policy about avoiding all personal attacks. If they are good faith, they will usually calm down after some-time, and engage in constructive discussions.

If they are trolls they will just try personal attacks, abusive languages and many more. I would just warn them with Twinkle or leave a message with our policy links. If they still don't get it, I would acknowledge them as trolls and ignore them completely. If the trolls still continue to attack me I would report them at Administrators' notice board.

. Sometimes good faith editors would get upset/annoyed as well and convey their message which might not be pleasant for your standard. Many times troll might not use personal attacks but being rude, condescending, put down, name calling and etc. To check on the editors past edits/talk page would help; however, the bottom line is that trolls want to annoy you and good faith editors annoyed at you and that is the subtle different. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I know that I'm fallible. Knowing what they have to say and engage with reasonable comments on my talk page, is a better way to find the mistakes unless they are obviously just trying to start a fight.

A disagreement on content dispute - an editor states a message to you "You are an idiot! If you don't have a master degree in History like I, you are not qualify to voice your opinion here for your arguments have no basis and it is a disgrace." Does this constitute a personal attack and why?

Answer: Calling me "an idiot" and my opinions baseless and "a disgrace" is not a constructive review, and can be considered as a personal attack. Maybe that the editor is on the right side of the dispute, but according to Wikipedia policy, we must not attack other editors personally.

And not having a degree on a said topic doesn't mean that someone doesn't have any right to voice opinions over someone who has a degree. In Wikipedia everyone should be treated as the same. If someone is wrong, we must try to guide and educate them; sometimes we might respond critically, pointing out the faults but personal attacks are not tolerated.

. "You are an idiot! If you don't have a master degree in History like I, you are not qualify to voice your opinion here for your arguments have no basis and it is a disgrace." - is not a personal attack as per Wikipedia guidelines. It is a put down, sacracism, obnoxious and high and mighty behavior, rude, not civil and etc. Your received a personal attack message on your talk page "Harold LLoyd - Greenacres" message. It is considered a personal attack because the editor specifically stated 'LEGAL ACTION FROM THE LLOYD FAMILY TO FOLLOW'. Pls revisit WP:Personal attack page again and familiar with the guidelines.

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies.

What forms socks puppetry usually takes? and where to report it?

Answer:

Sock puppetry takes various forms, depending on the sockpuppeteer :

IP-edit : Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address (very likely to be caught attempting it though).
New Account : Creating new accounts (to avoid detection or sanctions).
Piggybanking : Using another person's account (to save one's own account from being caught or to make a stand).
Sleepers : Reviving old unused accounts (to present them as different users)
Meatpuppetry : Creating accounts for friends or colleagues by persuading them (to use them to support one side of a dispute).

If sockpuppertry is found (rather suspected), we must report it to WP:SPI. The WP:SIGNS is an informative page regarding sockpuppeteers, we must go through it once; before filing any investigations. In reporting suspected sock puppetry, you must obey the rules of WP:OUTING with regard to disclosure of personal or identifying information. The reporting can be done manually; however, twinkle can be used to do it in an easy and efficient way.

. Do note if the personal info is public knowledge, that is not considered OUTING. When report to SPI, you need to have good hist diff of evidents and reasons to do so. See example see here 1 - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SwedenAviator/Archive here 2 - here 3. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi AbhiMukh97, See assignment 5 above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I have completed my assignment. Please review.

Hi AbhiMukh97, See above review. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I still didn't understand why it's not a personal attack(I know it's not as serious as to report and has issues of civity and politeness). The second point of NO Personal Attacks states that it is a personal attack to use "someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". And Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks also uses personal remarks and personal attacks as a supplement of each other. It is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic, but I still think calling someone "Idiot" and bluffing about own degree to suppress another person is not a personal attack (though not as serious as making legal threats or other attacks). And it is not as serious offense as to report the editor for that alone. Sincerely, AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 12:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi AbhiMukh97, As you have said, it is not civil. Being civil is one of the 5 pillar principals - see WP:5P4 and it is also one of CVUA motto - The motto of the Counter Vandalism Unit is Civility - Maturity - Responsibility. We should always be civil toward other Wikipedians especially as counter vandalism fighter, we often receive rude comments and yet we have to be civil in our responses. personal attacks is something more serious, such as threaten to physically harm an editor or legal threat or threat of OUTING and serious abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or 'serious' insulting. Note that the phrase starts with "If" you don't have ....". A rude/uncivil or put down comment is not considering a personal attack but "highly discourage". For only one rude comment, unless multiple/non stop consultations, admin would encourage involved editors to discuss the matter calmly and advise to being civil and discuss the issue in hand and not focus the editor. Example - As a reviewer, if a editor states they are going to kill me or sue me because I have declined their draft, that would be a personal attack in regardless if the draft is not acceptable by Wikipedia guidelines or I have indeed reviewed their draft wrongly which it should have been approved. - see example User talk:Kenjimayo. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello CASSIOPEIA, Thanks for clearing the misconception. I understood the difference. Sincerely, AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 13:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi AbhiMukh97, Are you ready to move on to next assignment? CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I am ready to move on. Thanks, AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 05:28, 26 August 2019 (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.

1. In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

Answer: Semi-protection is useful for pages that constantly attract a large amount of vandalism (e.g. Stephen Hawking ). A page should be semi-protected when multiple unregistered (or newly registered) users vandalize a page simultaneously (or repeatedly) especially on biographies of living persons. Generally, they target a page when the person or incident of the article features in the news (or in social media) or if there is any hoax. It can be permanent( as in case of BLP) or temporary(as in case of pages featured in news) depending on the situation, though the latter one is used more often than the previous one.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: The pending changes protection is typically for those pages that attract a very low amount of editing traffic. This kind of protection is similar to semi-protection, where anyone can edit, but edits from IPs or new users are only visible to the users when they are approved by pending changes reviewers. The main advantage of this, over semi-protection, is that it allows positive contributions from people who don't have accounts(or their accounts are new) and are willing to edit constructively; the disadvantage is that it creates work for editors(reviewers) to check and approve the changes. It should be used in similar situations as semi-protection, but for pages that receive low volumes of traffic (and so don't generate a mountain of approval work).

. The key here is low volumn but persistence over a period of time. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

3. In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Answer: This is the highest level of protection - only admins can edit. Again, it's for articles that receive a lot of vandalism and/or disruptive content disputes, but only when the disruption is regularly caused specifically by confirmed/auto-confirmed accounts and thus can't be stopped using semi-protection(It's generally applied temporarily to mainspace articles). It's also used for critical templates, like Template:Citation needed, which would screw up thousands of articles if someone experimented with it. Deceased Wikipedian's user pages (but not talk pages) are also be fully protected.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Salting or creation protection is applied when an article, which has been deleted, is repeatedly recreated. These might be for a group or some individual, who is constantly trying to create a promotional page for a non-notable person or company, or for attack pages, or for plain old offensive page names. Unlike other forms of protection, this type of protection is used pre-emptively, via the title blacklist, to stop people from creating obviously unnecessary pages. Most of the salting occurs after there is evidence that a title is being repeatedly recreated. As for example there is salting on Oshwah (which appeared as an attack page multiple times).

. Oshwah title salted - see here. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Article talk pages are less frequently the target of vandalism than their mainspace articles, and we should avoid protecting because it directly affects the constructive reviews and suggestions from other good IP (or new) users. We shouldn't semi-protect a talk page unless there is a significant amount of IP (or new) user vandalism on a talk page. In the most serious cases of vandalism, semi-protected may be implied, only for a limited duration, allowing only confirmed accounts to request changes to the page.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Request for protection of Mussolini family (diff) due to persistent vandalism.

. Do note on your WP:RPP for Amy Chua - it was declined because there was only one editor vandalised the page - user 211.49.16.34 and not multiple users (such as Mussolini family page) for such the editor is blocked - see User talk:211.49.16.34 instead the page is protected. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Please read WP:CSD.

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

Answer: Deleting articles is usually done by community consensus following discussion at WP:AFD. In certain cases, where it is obvious that a page needs to be deleted, administrators are allowed to use their discretion and delete a page without discussion - this should be done when the article meets one or more of the speedy deletion criteria. Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion and is reversible, but only by administrators. There are several criteria for speedy deletion, They are :

General (G1 to G14)
Article (A1 to A11)
Redirect (R2 to R4)
Files (F1 to F11)
Categories (C1, C2)
User-Page (U1 to U5)
Template (T2, T3)
Exceptional (X2)

There existed some criteria like X1, R1, T1 etc. which, are no longer valid and thus not used, belong to obsolete criteria.

NOw, if an article is about something that might be significant, but not notable, we should tag them for AfD rather than CSD. However, If a page contains patent nonsense or it is a test page or it is created for vandalism or a page that was deleted per AFD nomination, they should be tagged for speedy deletion by the criteria G1, G2, G3, and G4 respectively.

. Common CSD are (1) G7. Author requests deletion (if creator blank their draft page, we would send a message to comfirm if they would like to delete the page as they dont know how to place {{Db-g7}} on the draft page. Once it is confirmed then we could place the tag for them. (2) G11- Unambiguous advertising or promotion, and (3) G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

2. 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.

Answer: Listed below are the two speedy deletion pages, along with their tag:

Criteria G8 : Diff G8

.

Criteria G11 : Diff G11 (User reported to WP:UAA)

.

AbhiMukh97, See Assignment 6 above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I've completed my assignment. Please review. AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 09:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97, Well done. See above comment. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:17, 29 August 2019 (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

Answer: This could be a real person's name, who just happens to have a name similar to Dwayne Johnson - it could be anything. This is allowed, and there is no problem with the username, unless they are editing in areas where the name might be seen as misleading. So, if DJohnson was editing articles related to Dwayne Johnson (aka The Rock), then it would be sensible to report - either as misleading, or as promotional/shared use. If they were just editing random articles with no obvious connection - we leave them alone.

P.S: There an existing user called Djohnson, this user had no edits in articles related to the Rock whatsoever.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

LMedicalCentre

Answer: This username represents a group or organization, that leads to the possibility of shared usage and promotion. We can warn them and tell them to change the username. A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked. Must be reported to WP:UAA and let the admins decide.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Fuqudik

Answer: This is offensive and must be immidiately reported to WP:UAA as an offensive username. I've reported this kind of usernames see another one is see

.Very good! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

ColesStaff

Answer: Just like no.2. Usernames that are simply names of companies or groups are not permitted. This username promotesColes Supermarkets and thus comes under promotional/shared usernames. A friendly message can be sent and tell about the issue and prompt him/her to change username. If the editor engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, Must be reported to WP:UAA and let the admins decide.

.good to know yo will wait for the editor to edit to know their intention. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

~~~~

Answer: This is a non script username and should be reported. However, users with such names should be offered the opportunity for renaming their account or creating a new one. Must be reported to WP:UAA and let the admins decide. However, this kind of usernames are not allowed now-a-days.

. It is disallowed so you would not encounter it. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

172.295.64.27

Answer: This username which resembles IP address. Must be reported to WP:UAA immidiately as misleading username.

. It is disallowed so you would not encounter it. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Bieberisgay

Answer: This username contains personal attack. Report as disruptive/offensive username. This can also be a good report of username violating BLP, if it's seen editing Justin Bieber articles. Anyway, it must be reported to WP:UAA immidiately.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97, See Assignment 7 above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I've completed my assignment. Please review. AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 14:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97, Well-done! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Progress test[edit]

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!

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?

Answer: It is intentional vandalism, irrespective of the type of account involved. The editor is adding controversial (and deliberately false) information to a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons article.

. Good. vandalism is vandalism in regardless the edit is made by an IP or registered editor. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

Answer: It is a WP:BLP vandalism. It contains a personal attack on an individual.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Normally I'll place {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} (or {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} for newcomers) if it's the first vandalism of the month. I'll place level 2/3/4 warning accordingly if it's not the first.

. It is also {{subst:uw-biog}}, CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 30 August 2019 (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?

Answer: I won't be blocked due to WP:3RR as I reverted an obvious vandalism according to WP:3RRBLP.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Since vandal is IP editor, {{IPvandal}} should be used.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: The report will include:

1. Vandalised page name (reversion history if possible)

2. IP Vandal

3. User vandalised page after lv4(or 4im)

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 30 August 2019 (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?

Answer: I'll consider it as a test edit, assuming good faith, considering that the user is new. It should be considered as vandalism if the user continues doing this, after being properly warned.

. if this is their first or second edit. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{subst:uw-test1}} will be appropriate. If this is not the first edit, after proper warnings, adding vandalism templates will be better.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: -Rollback-AGF (Green) should be used, this will enable us to add comments and explain the reason behind the revert.

. Do add "test" edit on the edit summary. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 30 August 2019 (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?

Answer: He should be warned with level 4 first (in most of the cases). After that, if he continues vandalism, reporting can be done to WP:AIV.

. Can report to AIV if is user's edits are entirely vandalism or extremely offensive and unconstructive they can be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: The user can be blocked indefinitely, depending on the situation.

. Vandalism-only accounts usually be blocked indef. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: In this case, since the user is registered, {{vandal}} will be used.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: The reporting reasons will be:

1. Vandalized multiple times(include last vandalised page name)

2. Vandalised after lv4(or 4im) warning

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 30 August 2019 (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?

Answer: I will definitely revert it, as it is a blatant promotion from a user with a promotional username. Here, using the Rollback (blue colour), I will revert it as vandalism.

. or rollback-vandal. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

Answer: Both {{subst:uw-advert1}} and {{subst:uw-spam1}} can be used.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: It is better to tag the article with speedy deletion tag G11, since it is promotional. G12 can also be used since there is a copyright violation.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{subst:uw-username}} will be used. A spam notice will be placed for adding "www.laptopsinc.com" on the Laptop article.

. would use {{subst:uw-coi-username}} to indicated the username suggests a conflict of interest. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: It's a Promotional username, and thus the user must be reported.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97, See Assignment 8 above. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

CASSIOPEIA, I have completed my assignment. Please review. Sincerely, AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 08:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97, Very good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 30 August 2019 (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.

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

Answer: Rollback may be used when we revert obvious vandalism. The vandalism has to be so blatant that nobody would need an edit summary to understand why it's reverted. I can also use rollback to revert widespread edits (usually by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot or blocked vandal) which unhelpful to the encyclopedia. In addition, it can be used to revert editors own edits. But I have to leave an explanation at the article's talk page or other suitable location.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?

Answer: Rollback may NOT be used when we revert edits other than vandalism or the cases mentioned above, as they are the only circumstances that rollback may be used in. It may not, for example, be used to revert changes that violate policy but are not vandalism - unsourced additions, good faith removal of content etc. In these cases, we revert manually or use twinkle rollback(Green or Blue, not red) to give a proper edit summary.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?

Answer: There are two options.

If I didn't mean to do a revert, I will self-revert manually, with a summary along the lines of 'revert accidental use of rollback'
If I wanted to do a manual revert, but accidentally used rollback rather than revert, I will make a dummy edit with an explanatory edit summary. In this case, the reason for undoing the good-faith edit will then appear in the edit summary for the dummy edit instead of the rollback.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?

Answer: No, I will use manual revert or use twinkle rollback(Green or Blue, not red) to give a proper edit summary. Usually, I can't leave an edit summary when using rollback (I learned that there are some scripts which I can use to leave a customized edit summary. However, I think going the normal way is far better).

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97 See assignment 9 above. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I have completed my assignment. Please review. Sincerely, AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 15:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97 Good work. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Monitoring period[edit]

Congratulations! You have completed the main 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 7-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 seven days, if I am satisfied with your progress, you will take the final test; passing this will mean you graduate from the CVUA. Good luck!

If you have any problems or trouble along the way please leave a message on below this section. If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look.

AbhiMukh97, Greeting. The next phase of this course is Assignment 10 - "Monitoring Period", see above. If you have hundred of edits then I would not able to look through them all but will randamly select some to review your edits. Final Exam will follow after Monitoring Period. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi AbhiMukh97, You 7 day monitoring period has shown no major issues. See below you Final. All the best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (15%)[edit]

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

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

Answer 1: I'd do an AGF revert, and give that user a level 1 'Test Edit' warning if it happens to be their first warning.

Gibberish added by a new user is usually for testing the editing function out, as wondering can they really edit the page? Apply WP:AGF and warn the user as if this were the case, i.e. with {{uw-test1}}. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer 2: If they continue to do it again and again, I'd continue adding increasing levels of 'test edit' warnings. If they continue, despite multiple warnings, I'd report the user to AIV as disruptive/vandal.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

3 & 4. A user adds their signature to an article after one being given a {{Uw-articlesig}} warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?

Answer 3: If they were doing it without adding any useful content, I'd treat the edit as vandalism and warn the user with {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}. If they were adding useful content with sourcing, I wouldn't revert, but would edit manually to remove the signature but retain the content, and rather than using a warning template I'd attempt to engage with them on their talk page, explaining that I appreciate their content creation, but that signatures aren't used in article space and are considered disruptive.

It is good idea to leave a brief message on editor's talk page as communication is the key since the new user doest not know about Wikipedia guidelines yet, just so that the warning is clear. Do note that level 2 message is the first to use the word "vandalism" in the message, and do cautious about using that word unless evidence show the edit was a bad faith edit/a blatant vandalism edit. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer 4: In any case, if the user continues signing in the article space constantly, I'll report them to AIV.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer 5: It depends on what the article is about. If it's about John Smith, I'd do an AGF revert, with an edit summary of 'Unsourced subjective opinion', and give them a level 1 warning for NPOV. If the article had nothing to do with any John Smith, it would be hard to see a good faith reason for adding it, and so I'd probably treat it as vandalism, level 2 vandalism warning will be given.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer 6: I'll increase the level of warning. In any case, if the user continues this kind of edits after being warned properly, reporting to AIV will be necessary.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: I'd do an AGF revert, and give that user a level 1 'Test Edit' warning if it happens to be their first warning.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer 8: If they continue to do it again and again, I'd continue adding increasing levels of 'test edit' warnings. If they continue, despite multiple warnings, I'd report the user to AIV as disruptive/vandal.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

9, 10 & 11. A user removes sourced information from an article, with the summary 'this is wrong'. First time, and after that? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions?

Answer 9: I'll check the sources, to see whether they were reliable and whether they supported the assertions that had been removed. If the content and sources were good, I would revert it Assuming good faith for the first time, issuing a "delete1" warning. If the content/sourcing was problematic, I would do a dummy edit, and leave an edit summary explaining in more detail why this was a good removal of content.

. It is good to that your first instinct is the verify the source against the content, and the source's reliability. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer 10: For the first case, I'll increase the level of warning if this continues. If the user continues this kind of edits after being warned properly, reporting to AIV will be necessary.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer 11:It shouldn't really make any difference whether it was an experienced editor or a random IP/new account that did the removal. Everyone should be treated the same way.

.Good! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

12. An IP user removes removes unsourced article, what would you do?

Answer: If the removed portion is small, I'll leave it as it is. However, if a major chunk of material is removed, I'll AGF revert it and question the user about the reason behind the removal.

. If no edit summary is provided, then placed {{subst:Uw-delete1}} for unsourced content can be removed, especially in a BLP.

13. An IP user removes a sourced content and stated "not relevant", what would you do?

Answer: Similar to answer 9. I'll check the sources and then decide.

.Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

14. An IP user adds My parents do not love me. I going to jump out the balcony and kill myself", what would you do?

Answer: Although it's not a personal threat, it is blackmailing. I'll consider informing the administrators through AIV, it should be treated the same way as personal threat.

. It is a personal harm / personal threat to oneself - email emergency@wikimedia.org with a diff of the edit and inform an admin. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

15. An IP user adds "I going to kill the editor who have reverted my edit", what would you do?

Answer: This is a personal threat, I'll consider informing the administrators through AIV.

. It is a serious personal threat - email emergency@wikimedia.org with a diff of the edit, and inform an admin. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Part 2 Part 2 (15%)[edit]

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

1. A user blanks [[Cheesecake]

Answer: I would give {{subst:uw-blank1}} warning if they blanked it without giving a valid reason.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: I would give them {{subst:uw-attempt2}} warning.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: I would use single-issue warning {{subst:uw-efsummary}} to warn.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: I'll go with {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} for this.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{subst:uw-delete1}} or maybe {{subst:uw-delete2}}, it depends.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

Answer: I would give them a {{subst:uw-test1}} if it's their first-ever warning, {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} if the user is not new. But if they mentioned something like "I fixed it" {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} warning will be given.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Just like 'John Smith is the best!' from question 5&6, {{subst:uw-npov1}} if Tim is mentioned anywhere on the article and {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} if not.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: I'll go with {{subst:uw-biog1}}.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: I'll go straight to 4im - {{subst:uw-delete4im}}

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Disruption after level4 or 4im must be reported to AIV.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: I'll report ANI with a note about the harassment in the report.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{subst:uw-image1}} warning should be given.

.Or {{uw-test1}} since it is a new user. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Calling someone Nazi is considered Personal Attack. However, I'll try to ignore it until it goes beyond tolerance. At that scenario I'll report the user to ANI or AIV. I have been through this, here is my report.

. You could report it even it is the first time a blatant, extremely bad personal attack. Do note that we the vandal fighters do face such situation for it is in most part a thankless work. So just keep cool and when emotion hit the roof then take a break, make a cup of coffee, go for a run, have some cakes or whatever takes your fancy. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

14. A user adds "Italic text to Sydney

Answer: According to WP:MOS Italic texts are generally used to put emphasis on the words, so I'd check if they are used in purpose and don't belong to MOS:NONITALIC. Otherwise, I'll turn them to normal font. If the added material is disruptive or unnecessary, I'll revert the edit in whole.

. Believe you meant MOS:NOITALIC instead of MOS:NONITALIC. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

15. A user adds "he loves dick" to Chris Hemsworth

Answer: {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} will be given.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Part 3 (10%)[edit]

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

1. Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)

Answer: G11 - Promotional page.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

Answer: A7 - No indication of importance

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

3. Joe goes to England and comes home !

Answer: A1 - No context.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: G3 - Hoax.

. There is no Smadoodle could be found in the internet.. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

5. Fuck Wiki!

Answer: G3 - Blatant vandalism.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

What would you do in the following circumstance:

6. A user blanks a page they very recently created

Answer: I'll tag it with G7. I'll inform them about the tag placement, giving them the information that it can be deleted at any moment from now on.

. If it the first time the user create a page, then write to the editor and ask if they want to delete their own article as they do not know how to place G7 on the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: I'll AGF revert the edit and warn the user with {{subst:uw-speedy1}}. Additionally, I'll encourage them to tag their blanked article using {{Db-blanked}} from further on.

. Usually when an editor blank their page they created, they usually want the page to be deleted. Send a message to the editor and ask what is they intent and why they blank the page. If they want to delete the page they recreated then tag G7 or if they want to work on the article on draft page then move it to draft space However, if the CSD is a copyvio or promotional tag then revert the edit and warn the editor with {{subst:uw-speedy1}} for copyvio (legal implication here) and promo (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia an not a promotion platform) articles need to be deleted newpage or in draft. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

8 & 9. A user who is the creator of the page remove the "{{afd}}" tag for the first time and times after that?

Answer 8: I'll issue a {{subst:uw-afd1}} if it's the first time, encouraging him to participate in the discussion.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer 9: I'll increase the level of warning, I'll report the user to WP:ANI if the user continues to disrupt.

. Report to AIV. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

10. A draft page which is last edited more than 6 months ago.

Answer: I'll tag it under G13 and let the creator (or major contributors) know about the tag placed through a message to their talk page.

. If it is a sourced content and after checking with the notability requirements and deem the subject might be notable and content is as per sources claimed then do a dummy edit and place "Postponing G13" on the edit summary. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Part 4 (10%)[edit]

Are the following new (logged in) usernames violations of the username policy? Describe why or why not and what you would do about it (if they are a breach).

1. TheMainStreetBand

Answer: Promotional, per ORGNAME, and implies shared use, per ISU. I'd look at contributions first - if they had been editing about their band (or about other bands) I'd report to UAA; if not, I might just drop them a {{welcome-COI}}, or a personal message about username policy.

. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

2. Poopbubbles

Answer: It might be seen as offensive, I'd probably look at the edits and see what they were doing. If they were vandalising, I'd report them to UAA for that, if they were doing good work however I'd just ignore it.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

3. Brian's Bot

Answer: This is a misleading username, per MISLEADNAME and implies that it's a bot account. I'll definitely report to UAA.

. Check the user page to see if it's an authorized bot. If not, it is either a misleading username or an unauthorized bot so it should be reported to UAA. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

Answer: This is long and difficult to read, so probably violates UNCONF. I'd look at the editing history, and see what they were up to. If they were vandalising, I'd report them to UAA; if they were doing good work, I'd drop them a friendly note with a link to the policy, and suggest that they consider changing their username, or at least create a signature that is more readable, if they didn't respond I will report it to UAA.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

5. Bobsysop

Answer: Certainly misleading. It implies that the user is an admin. If it's not an admin, I'll report to UAA.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

6. 12, 23 June 2012

Answer: It obviously looks like a timestamp, clearly violates UNCONF. I'll report it to UAA immediately.

. It looks like an indication of "time". CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

7. PMiller

Answer: Nothing wrong with that, I'll leave them with it. But if the user claims to be P.Miller or edits articles related to him, I'll report them to UAA.

. This username is fine . Leave a COI template on the user's page if they edit on [[P.Miller] page.

8. OfficialJustinBieber

Answer: This is misleading per IMPERSONATE, and so I would report to UAA.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

9. The Dark Lord of Wiki

Answer: Nothing wrong with that, I'll leave them with it.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

10. I love you

Answer: Nothing wrong with that, I'll leave them with it.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Part 5 (10%)[edit]

Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.

1. Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?

Answer: Reverting obvious vandalism is not considered as edit warring. So, it's unlikely to get involved into one.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: They should be reported to AIV. Generally, I use Twinkle to report them to AIV.

. State vandalism-only accounts in the report. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

Answer: ANI is for 'chronic, intractable' problems, so that might be a better place to report complex abuse.

. Do inform involved parties on their talk page CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: I will use Twinkle to report them to UAA.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Personal attacks should be reported to ANI.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Assuming I had already warned the warring users, and attempted to reach a resolution at the article talk page, I would use Twinkle to submit a report to AN3.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

7. Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?

Answer: Ambiguous violations of BLP should be reported to BLPN (Urgent situations should, however, be reported to AIV as vandalism)

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

8. Where and how should a stock puppet be reported?

Answer: Suspected sockpuppets should be reported to SPI using Twinkle.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

9. Where and how should a page need protection be reported?

Answer: Page protection is requested at RPP. I generally use Twinkle for this.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

10. Where and how should editors involved in WP:3RR be reported to

Answer: I should report it to AN3 using Twinkle.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Part 6 - Theory in practice (40%)[edit]

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

Answer 1: Vandalism onRivermount College diff1 warning

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer 2: Vandalism on Jack Ma diff2 warning

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

3, 4 & 5. Find and revert one good faith edit, one self-revert test edit, one test edit and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.

Answer 3: Good Faith Edit on William Nicol (Transvaal) Diff

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer 4: Self-revert test edit on The Call of the Wild ( Edit and Revert )

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer 5: Test edit on Information and communications technology (Diff Warn)

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

6 & 7. Correctly report two users (two AIV and two of 3RR to ANI). Give the diffs of your report below.

Answer 6: AIV 1 - AIV1

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

AIV 2 - AIV2

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Note 1 - Not only editors can be blocked from vandalism edit but serious disruptive edits as well. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer 7: 3RR 1 - 3RR1

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

3RR 2 - 3RR2

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

8, & 9. Correctly request the protection of four articles (2 pending changes level 1 and 2 semi protection) ; post the diffs of your requests below.

Answer 8a - pending changes level 1 protected: On Lord Jamar diff1 protection 1

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer 8b - pending changes level 1 protected: On Playboi Carti discography diff2 protection 2

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer 9a - semi protection: On The Kinkaid School diff3 protection 3

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer 9b - semi protection: On Technology acceptance model diff4 protection 4

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Note 2: I saw some of your requests which were not granted for RPP. Pls note - if only one/two editors vandalized the page, give warning and report to AIV after the last warning if vandalised edit is made. However, you dont report to RPP in cases of such. Report to RPP when multiple (from 3 to unlimited) editors made disruptive / vandalized edits. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Note 3: For level protection - it is a low volume over a period of time. Example two and up disruptive edits but happened for the last 4-unlimited continues days a row. Do state "low volume but persistence vandalism/disruptive edits from xx date to xx date" when reporting. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

10 & 11. Correctly nominate four articles for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nominations below.

Answer 10 & 11:

10a - 1. Page1 as per WP:G11

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

10b - 2. Page2 as per WP:G1

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

11a - 3. Page3 as per WP:G2

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

11b - 4. Page4 as per WP:G11

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

12 & 13. Correctly report two usernames as a breach of policy.

Answer 12: User: Heydjkwdjbebewhbhwe Reported as disruptive username Report1

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer 13: BelindaFans 2019 Reported as promotional username Report2

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

14 & 15. Why is edit warring prohibited? What leads to edit warring?

Answer 14: Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making consensus harder to reach. Thats why edit warring prohibited in Wikipedia. Users who engage in edit wars can be blocked or even banned.

. Editor should work together to improve article as articles in Wikipedia is the collabration of many editors. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer 15: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override other's contributions. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable or not. The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth (There are some exemptions though).

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort is made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles. That's why BLP vandalism should be taken more seriously than general vandalisms. Sometimes the use of administrative tools such as page protection and deletion is necessary for the enforcement of this policy, and in extreme cases action by Wikimedia Foundation staff is required.

. The main concern of BLP vandalism is it could affect the subject's personal life, reputation, privay career. In some cases it also has legal implications as it can violate laws slander or controversial claims that are unsourced or cited to unreliable sources. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

17 & 18. What would you do if a troll keeps harassing you? What must you not engage with the trolls?

Answer 17: Under these situations, you must remain calm and DENY them. We should simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them, if they vandalise user page or user talk page. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, we should not engage with them and leave a note at WP:ANI.

. To WP:DENY, keep calm, and ignore the trolls as we should, but if editors ask questions about the warning messages, or seek to understand what have they done incorrectly, a interacting should be taking place and reply them in a "mechanical manner" of writing style without engaging in the troll or react emotionally. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

Answer 18: All they want is to be recognized as they usually suffer from chronic alienation, they want someone to notice them. The more attention we give, the more they will want to vandalise Wikipedia. They want to be infamous by interrupting and frustrating the Wikipedia project and community. So we just revert, give an obviously automated warning, and then move on.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

19. What is the difference between semi and full protection?

Answer: Semi-protected prevents unregistered users (IPs) and very new accounts from editing a page but allows other users to edit it normally. On the other hand, full protection is the highest level of protection and allows only admins to edit and is only applied when other types of protections have no chance of working.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

20. In your own words, describe why personal attacks are harmful.

Answer: Personal attacks are disruptive. They harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Such attacks tend to draw battle lines and make it more difficult for editors to work together. That's why Wikipedia encourages a civil community, where people make mistakes and are encouraged to learn from them. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. That's why it is prohibited to attack any user personally.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I have written all the answers. Please check. AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 15:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97 OK, I will be looking into it on this weekend for I am in transit tmr. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi AbhiMukh97It's been a pleasure to work with you over the past month.

I hope you gained something from this CVUA program. You could go to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback to request your rollback user right and do inform you have graduated from CVUA program. once it is approved you can download WP:Huggle as this is a great vandalism tool to use. I use both Twickle and Huggle but they do not have all the warning templates install in the system. So when require, manually subst them. to Do drop by my talk page you have any questions as I am here to help. Best of luck, and thank you so much for your willingness to help Wikipedia in this role. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: thanks for providing me the best quality training program, that one could ask for. It’s been an honour, training under you. Thanking you, AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 14:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Final score[edit]

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage
1	15	12	15%	12%
2	15	15	15%	15%
3	10	9.5	10%	9.5%
4	10	9.5	10%	9.5%
5	10	10	10%	10%
6	20	19.5	40%	39%
TOTAL	80	75.5	100	95%

Completion[edit]

Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction! You have now graduated from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy and completed your final exam with 95%. Well done!

As a graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox (make sure you replace your enrollee userbox) as well as the graduation message posted on your talk page (this can be treated the same as a barnstar).
{{User CVUA|graduate}}:

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Callanecc, who has graciously published his training methods on-wiki. As I thought his methods were of higher quality than anything I could achieve on myself, I used his materials for your training, with a few minor tweaks and additional questions.