User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Path slopu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 the talk page.

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

How to use this page

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

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

The first assignment[edit]

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.
  • Good faith:- Edits which is not vandalism. They may be unhelpful and not related to article's topic. But they are not to destroy wikipedia. Most of the times the are made by New comers.
  • Vandalism:- Edits such as malicious removal of content, changing of content beyond all recognition, without any neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research,etc.It is a attempt to damage Wikipedia. PATH SLOPU 07:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY Right. The key here is intention. If an editor intends to help Wikipedia, and the edit is considered disruptive, they are still considered a "good faith" editor especially the new editor does not aware their edits are disruptive. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia. Editor might edit adds incorrect or unsourced information and this does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal; they key is their "intention". CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:31, 8 April 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

Some edits reverted by me

  1. diff-AGF-1
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. diff-AGF-2
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. diff-AGF-3PATH SLOPU 07:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY Jim Morrison died in 1971, I am not sure he was one of the songwriters as the song released in 2019. Since the edit was not sourced, in one way it is considered good faith however, it another and only if the edit is verified as unfactual then it would considered deliberate vandal edit. What we would do is revert the edit as unsourced. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Vandalism

Some of the edits identified by me

  1. diff-van-1
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. diff-van-2
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. diff-van-3 Thank you--PATH SLOPU 07:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY When section of a sourced content is removed and no edit summary is provided that would considered vandal edit. In this case the content is unsourced but at the same time no edit summary is provided. Revert the edit and leave level 1 (Twinkle does have the option for the tag) {{uw-delete1}} warning on the editor talk page as initial warnings for content removals without more descriptive edit summaries. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
These edits were already reverted by me using STiki.PATH SLOPU 07:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Path slopu Hi, I've left some feedback above. Please read and go through them and let me know if you have any questions. If you're ready to move on, I will post your next assignment. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA:Thank you for the feedback. I'm willing to accept next assignment. Please post next assignment. Thank you.PATH SLOPU 16:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu Pls see the next assignment below. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:56, 9 April 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
Why do we warn users?

Ans:-We warn users to notify them that they've violated a policy or guideline, and that we have reverted their changes.PATH SLOPU 05:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

checkY Right. However, more importantly, 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) 07:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

Ans:-Generally this warning is used in the case of excessive or continuous disruption/vandalism from a logged-user or IP editor.PATH SLOPU 05:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

checkY Good. It is used for cease and desists widespread vandalism, especially for those cases the that is egregious in a short time frame. For those that less egregious, lower warning level should be used. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


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

Ans:-Yes, I should substitute the template (especially user warnings) when adding them to user talk page. We can substitute the template by adding the code subst: to the template. For example {{subst:Template name}}. (As we know, Twinkle will always substitute user warnings when adding them in talk page. So we shouldn't substitute it manually.)PATH SLOPU 05:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

checkY. Good. Do note that not all warning tags are available in Twickle/ SiTki / Hunggle. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


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

Ans:- I'll report the user in WP:AIV for blocking.PATH SLOPU 05:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

checkY. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Please give examples (using {{Tlsubst|''name of template''}}) of three different warnings (not different levels of the same warning and excluding the test edit warning levels referred to below), that you might need to use while recent changes patrolling and explain what they are used for.

Ans:-

  1. {{subst:uw-vandalism4}}-Vandalism level 4
checkY. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. {{subst:uw-delete3}}-Page blanking level 3
  2. {{subst:uw-delete4}}-Removal of encyclopedic content without explanation (edit summary)-level4.PATH SLOPU 06:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY.Pls note for "source" content. For unsourced content (referring back to assignment 1 response), only if you know the subject well or it is a public knowledge (such as (example) Obama is the formal President of United State). Please note if content is unsourced, especially Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, it could be removed/deleted. If the editor is new (you would see their contribution edit on Huggle) then revert the edit and leave level 1 warning on the editor talk page as initial warnings for content removals without more descriptive edit summaries. This is to educate the new editor to provide summary on deleted content. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Make sure you keep in mind that some edits that seem like vandalism can be test edits. This happens when a new user is experimenting and makes accidental unconstructive edits. Generally, these should be treated with good faith, especially if it is their first time, and warned gently. The following templates are used for test edits: {{subst:uw-test1}}, {{subst:uw-test2}} and {{subst:uw-test3}}.

I just wanted to make sure you know about Special:RecentChanges, if you use the diff link in a different window or tab you can check a number of revisions much more easily. If you enable Hovercards in the Hover section of your preferences, you can view the diff by just hovering over it. Alternately, you can press control-F or command-F and search for "tag:". some edits get tagged for possible vandalism or section blanking.

@CASSIOPEIA: I answered to the questions. Please check them. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 06:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Path slopu Hi, Last question - Your answer {{subst:uw-delete3}} and {{subst:uw-delete4}} are the "same warning" but different level. Pls provide 'three different type of warnings" - see question again and kindly rework. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA:Sorry for mistake. I added another template. Regards.PATH SLOPU 06:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu See my comments above and let me know if you have any question or you are ready for next assignment. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA:Thank you very much for your comments. I had placed a doubt in the talk page of this page. Also please check it. I'm willing to accept next assignment. PATH SLOPU 07:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA:I am willing to accept next assignment. Thank you.PATH SLOPU 10:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu Pls see next assignment below. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Please include at least two test edits and at least two appropriate reports to AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below
# Diff of your revert Your comment (as applicable). If you report to AIV please include the diff TheQ Editor's Comment
1 diff AIV-Reported to AIV, warned with vandalism-level-3, User get blocked checkY Good. Vandalism only account.
2 diff AIV-Reprted to AIV , User get blocked checkY Good.
3 diff warned with vandalism-level 1 checkY
4 diff warned with level 1 ☒N Adding unsourced content is not considered a vandalized edit. See further comment below.
5 diff Test edit warning ☒N Editor started edit before and has been warned - see Editor contributions and vandalism edits in Jan. 2019. See further comment below.
6 diff warned with vandalism level 1 checkY
7 diff warned with vandalism level 1 ☒N This is the editor first edit and if I am not mistaken Kushwah / Kushwaha is an Indian surname (family / last name). It should treated as {{subst:uw-test}}
8 diff warned with vandalism level 1 checkY
9 diff warned with vandalism level 1 checkY
10 diff vandalism level 1 checkY Due to the number amount of vandalized edits, a higher warning level could be applied. See further comment below.
11 diff test edit checkY Could tag {{subst:uw-unsourced}}
12 diff test edit checkY
13 diff vandalism level 1 ☒N It looks WP:BOLD editing to me. Editor ws trying to combine 2 separate sentences into one although there is minor copy edging there.
14 diff vandalism level 1 checkY Good.
15 diff 4im checkY Good.


@CASSIOPEIA: I added some diffs of reverts I had done using STiki. Most of the time STiki automatically added level 1 warning. Also, some of the edits (warnings given to users) were the first edit (creation of page) and diffs aren't available. Please check. Regards.PATH SLOPU 12:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Path slopu see below:
  1. Adding unsourced content: Just as removing unsourced content is not a vandalism edit (we usually dont revert or warn the editor) so is adding unsourced content. At times adding unsourced content may be disruptive but it is still considered good faith edit unless the edit is to deliberately harm Wikipedia. As per assignment one - the key is 'the intention' of the editor. We death with the good faith editors in different manner.
  2. Test edit - Test edit is made by 'new editor' on their first few non-vandal edits and their 'intention' is to try/see if they 'actually could made an edit in Wikipedia'.
  3. Warning level / Automated Messages - If different / higher level of warning is more appropriate than what would be assigned by automated message, then pls use Twinkle. Twinkle and Hunggle have the option of manually select the warning level instead of using the automated warning level. Do not hesitate to write a personal comment/message if the automated message is not suffice of what you would like convey.
Let me know if you have further questions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA:Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Regards.PATH SLOPU 08:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I have one doubt about huggle. Please see the talk page of this page. PATH SLOPU 08:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu replied. See talk page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA:Thank you very much. Would you mind posting next assignment. Regards.PATH SLOPU 13:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu The next segment is just some reading material on how to inform editors that an IP address is shared and various tools on counter vandalism. Please take go through them and reread the previous assigned reading material as well. Btw, pls use the actual substitute template so the 3 warning messages (on previous assignment) could be seen to make you understand how to use it. Once you have done and ready to move on then please let me know. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:05, 10 April 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:


NOTE: All of the templates in this section are not substituted (so don't use "subst:").


Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#Tools includes a list of tools and resources for those who want to fight vandalism with a more systematic and efficient approach.

What you have been doing so far is named the old school approach. As well as manually going through Special:RecentChanges, it includes undos, "last clean version" restores, and manually warning users.

There are a large number of tool which assist users in the fight against vandalism. They range from tools which help filter and detect vandalism to tools which will revert, warn and report users.

Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool[edit]

Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool monitors the RSS feed and flags edits with common vandalism terms. It's a very simple tool, but which is useful for not having to go check each and every diff on Recent Changes.

Twinkle[edit]

The first tool I want to mention is Twinkle, it's a very useful and I strongly suggest you enable it (in the Gadgets section of your preferences). It provides three types of rollback functions (vandalism, normal and AGF) as well as an easy previous version restore function (for when there are a number of different editors vandalising in a row). Other functions include a full library of speedy deletion functions, and user warnings. It also has a function to propose and nominate pages for deletion, to request page protection to report users to WP:AIV & WP:UAA (which we'll get to later).

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 consists of (1) a component that listens to the RecentChanges feed and scores edits on their possibility of being uncontructive; and (2) An application which scans through the most recent revisions on pages and scores the possibility of them being uncontructive.

Huggle[edit]

Huggle is a Windows program which parses (orders them on the likelihood of being unconstructive edits and on the editor's recent history) from users not on its whitelist. It allows you to revert vandalism, warn and reports users in one click.


@CASSIOPEIA:Now Huggle 3 is available for Linux. I'm a Linux user. I installed it. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 04:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA:Thank you very much for giving this assignment about templates for IP, important vandalism fighting tool. I'm willing to accept next assignment. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 04:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu Please note that Additionally, having rollback permissions on the English Wikipedia is mandatory for Huggle, thus I advise you NOT to use it even you have downloaded the application for fearing your rollback request will not be granted or you might be blocked for not adhere to guideline. You could do all the vandal work by using Twinkle. Also pls provide "actual substitute template of the 3 warning messages" which mentioned in my previous message - at Warning and reporting section under the question: "Please give examples (using {{subst:name of template}}) of three different warnings (not different levels of the same warning and excluding the test edit warning levels referred to below, that you might need to use while recent changes patrolling and explain what they are used for". Let me know when they are done. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA:Yes, I agree with you. Though I installed Huggle I didn't use it yet. I know Rollback permission is mandatory for it. I can't login to it since I haven't the permission. Thank you.PATH SLOPU 08:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.

checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09
19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • {{subst:uw-delete4}}-Removal of encyclopedic content without explanation (edit summary)-level4.

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia.

checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09
19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you think that the page should be deleted, please read Wikipedia:How to delete a page. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.

checkY Warning type is correct but not the warning level. The subst is level 2 but the warning level intended is level 3. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09
19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA: Sorry for mistake. PATH SLOPU 09:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA:I added the substituted templates. Kindly please check it. Am I right? PATH SLOPU 08:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
See the above comments and the below is the next assignment. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:19, 11 April 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?

Ans:- Vandals and trolls suffer from alienation perceived powerlessness and seek recognition by interrupting the Wikipedia. Denying recognition to trolls and vandals neutralizes common primary motivators for vandalism and disruption. PATH SLOPU 10:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

checkY Right. The trolls and vandals seek attention and recognition. If we react and get upset of their actions then we feed them. We should avoid glorify them and handling their edits solely and not attending to their attention seeking behaviour. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


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

Ans:-

  • GF user

If a GF user ask for the reason for the revert I'll explain the reason for the revert. May be give the policy or guideline behind this. And try to understand the user about revert. If mistake lies in me, I'll apologies and undo my edit. PATH SLOPU 10:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

GF user will normally try to justify his/her edit, may be with policies or guidelines. They do not move on with harassment.PATH SLOPU 14:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Troll trying to harass

I'll remain calm and ignore it. If the harassment leads to harm me, I'll follow the procedures on dealing with threats of harm. In very serious cases like privacy invasion, off-wiki attack,etc, I'll try to contact the Arbitration Committee, Oversight team, etc. Regards. PATH SLOPU 10:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

They will harass us with threats, intimidation, repeated annoying, unwanted contact, attention, and repeated personal attacks, etc.PATH SLOPU 14:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
exclamation mark  We often see a troll would behave aggressively with abusive language and using the tactic of attacking or harassing toward others; however, good faith editors do sometimes get upset and leave unpleasant comments on your talk page when their edits are reverted, an act of frustration. In most cases good faith editor would want a clam discussion and seeking advice on what they have done wrong. The key here is "intention" of the edit. If their edit is try to help Wikipedia then it is considered a good faith editor. If their edit is a rude comment or using abusive languages then that would be a troll. Also you check on their other recent edits to see if they behaved like a troll or a good faith editor. A good faith editor might annoyed at you but a troll wants to make you annoyed. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA:I added answers to questions. Please check it. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 10:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu please read the second question again. The question asks how would you tell a good faith user from a trolled editor? CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA:Yes, I changed it. Kindly please check it. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 14:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu, pls read the comment careful and let me know if you have any question or you are reading to more to next assignment. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIAThank you very much. I'm willing to accept next assignment.PATH SLOPU 17:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu See below. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:13, 12 April 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.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
A page should be semi protected when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new users or IP editors. It is also used when editing by sock puppets of blocked or banned users occurs. It use especially when vandalism or disruption occurs on BLP who have had a recent high level of media interest.PATH SLOPU 05:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?
Pending changes protection should be used to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism, violations of the BLP policy, or insertion of content that are COPYVIO.PATH SLOPU 05:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
☒N The key is "low rate" and persistent vandalism over a period of time. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
An article should be fully protected when persistent vandalism or edit warring from extended confirmed users occurs. PATH SLOPU 05:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY Such as, edit wars and content disputes, copyright violation and defamation of living people. Full protection is very rare. Fully protection would only applied when other type of protections would not work. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
This is useful when users try to repeatedly recreate bad articles that have been deleted.PATH SLOPU 05:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
Talk pages are not usually protected. They are only semi-protected for a limited duration in the most severe cases of vandalism. PATH SLOPU 05:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Correctly request the protection of two pages (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.
  • diff- semi protection.
☒N - see comment from admin - [1]. Pls note that article is protected when "multiple - 3 and up" diff editors vandalize the article. See example T.J. Dillashaw, an Ultimate Fighting Championship mixed martial arts fighter, who was suspended by New York State Athletic Commission and United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) for testing positive for banned Performance-enhancing substance / (PED) Erythropoietin (EPO), a peptide hormone used to stimulate red blood cell production, which is same substance Lance Armstrong tested positive years back which he was stripped off all his achievements from 1998 to 2011, biggest doping scandal in cycling history. When the news broke, vandals name calling Dillashaw which you could see from history page from 08:32, April 10, 2019‎ to 16:28, April 10, 2019‎, resulting the page is protection from April 10 to May 10 (1 month). CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


  • diff- pending changes protection. PATH SLOPU 05:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
☒N - see comment from admin - [2]. It is about dispute of content and should advise editors involved to discuss their different in talk page to come to a resolution. If advice is not taken trend continued, you would report them to ANI. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

*With the above explanation, kindly provide additional two correctly request page protection (one pending and one semi); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

(1) Pending page protection -

diff.PATH SLOPU 06:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY. See HERE. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

(2) Semi page protection -

diff-PATH SLOPU 06:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

☒N See HERE. If you see the history page Here, there is only one vandal edit in April which you have reverted and reported. Remember only multiple editors vandalize the page in many edits to merit the page to be protected. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?
Pages can be deleted with CSD when it meets any one of the criteria for speedy deletion. It is used to remove pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion. PATH SLOPU 05:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY Some CSD are done for other reason such as if they fall under G6 to G10. Pls revisit and understand the criteria.
Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons - they can be for any of the criteria) and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted an the URL that the page deleted by admin under below.
  • diff- tagged with G7. (It also meets the criteria U1).
page gets deleted PATH SLOPU 12:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY good. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
☒N A1 applies when the articles lacking sufficient "context" to identify the subject of the article as the article context does identify wit the subject. Articles are tag with CSD usually are those just got submitted for various reasons, commonly WP:COPYVIO WP:COPYVIO (violate of copyright infringement , test page}, WP:PROMOTIONAL or hoax. You can find new pages submitted at New Page Feed. Pls only tag copyvio when the content is "substantial copyvio from the original page - big/huge chank of the contain" and not a few word here and there. Proper nonce, document names, titles, and common phrases (etc kill two birds with one stone) are not considered copyvio and so is public domain sites and it is also applied to direct quote. You could use Earwig's Copyvio Detector to check copyvio. Pls revisit the links/pages mentioned in this section and familiar yourself on the topics. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

*With the above explanation, kindly provide two pages for speedy deletion (one for promotion and one for copyvio) and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted an the URL that the page deleted by admin under below.

(1) Promotional -

diff-G11 (self promotion)PATH SLOPU 05:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY Good. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

(2) Copyvio -

diff-G12 (COPYVIO).PATH SLOPU 05:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY. see deletion log here [3]. Just a note here - direct quote is not considered copyvio and same go with proper nouns. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)



@CASSIOPEIA:I added the answers to the questions. The CSD is not deleted yet. But I added the diffs of my edit. Please check it. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 09:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA:I may be in offline until April 21. I would like to pause our training in academy until that time. Hope that we join after some days. RegardsPATH SLOPU 03:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu Pls see the comments above and kindly go read through them carefully. I suggest you to revisit the links of this assignment to familiar yourself with the topics. I have place two more exercises for page protection and two for CSD. Do take the time to read the program material and do the exercise as needed. Pls ping me when you have done the exercises and have a good short break. See you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA:I added diffs. Please check it. Regards.PATH SLOPU 06:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu Pls see the comments above and do go over them and note the different btw pending and semi protection. Both need many vandalized edits to qualify page protection. Pending is low volume but persistence vandalism/disruptive edits over "a period of time" and semi is many/high volume persistance vandalized edits. Let me know when you are ready for next assignment. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA:Thank you for your comments. I'm willing to accept next assignment. PATH SLOPU 16:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu See below "Usernames" assignment. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Usernames[edit]

Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users 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).
(1) DJohnson
Thought: It's only a normal name. No offense
Action and why: No action--PATH SLOPU 08:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


(2) LMedicalCentre
Thought: Its a promotional username. Because it unambiguously represent the name of a company/institution.
Action and why: I'll post a friendly message in his/her talk page and tell about the issue and prompt him/her to change username. If user continues with this name may be report in WP:RFC/NAME. If promote company report in WP:UAA--PATH SLOPU 08:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


(3) Fuqudik
Thought: Normal name. But slightly offensive when uttering. I think its not a matter.
Action and why: If this username become offend to anyone I'll request the user to change it.--PATH SLOPU 08:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
☒N If the user contribution history show good faith edit then discuss name change with the editor. If the editor edits are vandalized edits, then report to WP:UAA immediately without warning. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


(4) ColesStaff
Thought: Its a promotional one mentioning a company (Coles Group)
Action and why: Same as in second example. If the user promote company report in WP:UAA.--PATH SLOPU 08:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
checkYWait until the user has edited to know the user intention. Check the edit history and if the edits are promotional then report to WP:UAA. If the edits are WP:NPOV then write to user for a name change. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


(5) ~~~~
Thought: Absolutely misleading username. Resembles signature.
Action and why: Since the username is misleading and confusing, immediate action is needed. So reporting in WP:UAA is appropriate.--PATH SLOPU 08:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY At current name as such are automatically disallowed in Wikipedia, for such you would be seeing such user name. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


(6) 172.295.64.27
Thought: Its resembles IP address and a misleading one.
Action and why: Same as in previous example. Report in WP:UAA--PATH SLOPU 08:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY At current name as such are automatically disallowed in Wikipedia, for such you would be seeing such user name . CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


(7) Bieberisgay
Thought: Its a disruptive one and come under WP:BLPABUSE, since attacking a individual ( pop singer Bieber).
Action and why: Talk to the user and tell to change username. Use {{subst:uw-username}},etc. If the user disagree, I'll report in WP:UAA.--PATH SLOPU 08:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY. You could report to WP:UAA immediately.


@CASSIOPEIA:I answered to the questions. Kindly please check it. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 08:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu Hi, please see the comments above. Let me know when you are ready for next assignment. cheer CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA:Thank you for your comments. I'm willing to accept next assignment. PATH SLOPU 14:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu Hi, Your next assignment is a progress test, see below. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:05, 17 April 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?
    • Ans:-I'll consider it as vandalism (may be test edit for newcomers).--PATH SLOPU 15:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
      • checkY It is a vandalism either for newcomer or editor has been edit Wikipedia for a while. You judgement should base on what is the user "intention" (assignment 1) in regardless if they are new (their 1st/second edit) or have been edited for years in Wikipedia). The intention here is harmful and adding deliberately false information to a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons article, this is definitely vandalism. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


  • Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?
    • Ans:- It definitely violates WP:BLP, WP:BLPSOURCES. Because the information hasn't any sources to prove it and it is absolutely a personal attack to an individual if it is not correct.PATH SLOPU 15:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
      • checkY as it is not a personal opinion and adding fault information. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


  • What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?
    • Ans:- Normally I'll place vandalism-level 1 ({{subst:uw-vandalism1}}) to new user. If the user is editing from early (not a newcomer), I'll place level 2/3/4 warning according to cases. PATH SLOPU 15:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
      • checkY if the editor has been editing Wikipedia for some time level 2 or 3 is appropriate, unless harmful egregious edit in a short time. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:45, 18 April 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?
    • Ans:-No , I won't be block according to WP:3RR, because I reverted an obvious vandalism according to WP:3RRNO. PATH SLOPU 15:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)



  • What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
    • Ans:-It is definitely a hoax. "This user vandalizing the article Bieber for several times by adding false information (WP:HOAX) and violating guidelines and policies like WP:BLP, WP:BLPSOURCES etc even after warning is given."PATH SLOPU 15:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
      • ☒NReport should include (1) vandalised page name (2) IP user (3) indicating user has been warm 4 times (level 4). CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:45, 18 April 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?
    • Ans:- Since it is a newcomer considering it as test edit is better. It should be consider as vandalism if it continues. PATH SLOPU 15:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


  • What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?
    • Ans:-{{subst:uw-test1}} in normal cases. If this not the first time edit adding appropriate vandalism template is better. PATH SLOPU 15:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


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


  • The user now has a level 3 warning on their talk page. They make a vandal edit, would it be appropriate to report this user to AIV? Why or why not?
    • Ans:-First I'll post level 4 warning (may be 4im), if this continue definitely report in AIV. PATH SLOPU 15:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


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


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


  • What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
    • Ans:-"This user vandalizing the page(name of article) for several times by adding random letters even after different levels of warning is given." PATH SLOPU 15:56, 17 April 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?
    • Ans:-Yes, I revert it since a promotional text is added by a user with promotional username. I'll use Rollback (blue colour) and give the reason in comment. I think it is not a GF edit. PATH SLOPU 16:15, 17 April 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?
    • Ans:-Yes I'll tag. I'll use G11 since it is promotional. Also can use G12 since there is COPYVIO. PATH SLOPU 16:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


  • Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?
    • Ans:-Yes I'll place the template {{subst:uw-coi-username}}. Parameter for article name and parameter for URL to website will used. PATH SLOPU 16:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
      • checkY yes but use {{subst:Db-spam-notice|PageName}} CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


  • Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?
    • Ans:-Yes I'll report to UAA with reason- Promotional username. PATH SLOPU 16:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)



@CASSIOPEIA: I answered to the questions. Kindly please check it. Regards. PATH SLOPU 16:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu See you next assignment below. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:45, 18 April 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.
    • Ans:-May be used
  1. To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear
  2. To revert edits in your own user pages
  3. To revert edits that you have made
  4. To revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban.
  5. To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page.

May not be used

  1. If there are multiple consecutive edits to the page by the same author.
  2. Do not use rollback on a page which has only been edited by one person.
  3. When reverting good-faith changes PATH SLOPU 07:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY The key thing is to use rollback only for obvious vandalism and dont use a rollback on good-faith edits. Just like most user rights, if you abusing rollback, your right would be taken away. CASSIOPEIA(talk)


  • What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?
    • Ans:-
  1. If accidentally use rollback, revert the edit manually (undo) by leaving an edit summary- "Self-revert accidental use of rollback".
  2. When rollback use accidentally in undoing GF edit, follow a dummy edit with edit summary- "Accidental use of rollback - reason for reversion".PATH SLOPU 07:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY You could also leave a message on the involved editor talk page. CASSIOPEIA(talk)


  • Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?
    • Ans:-We can add summary by copying the URL of rollback, paste it into browser's address bar, add &summary= and type our desired summary.

Instead of this we can use Twinkle to revert the edit with summary very easily. PATH SLOPU 07:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

☒N when an edit has not been save, I dont think there is a hist diff URL. Use standard Twinkle rollback if an edit summary is need to explain the reason of the reversion. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


@CASSIOPEIA:I answered to the questions please check. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 07:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
kindly also please answer to my question in talk page. Thank you.PATH SLOPU 08:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu Good day. Reviewed. See above. The next section is Monitoring period. Do note, if you make hundred of "vandalism related edit", I would not able to go through all of them, so make a reasonable amount, such a no more than 50 for the next seven days. 13:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


7-day 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 my talk page. If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look.


Path slopu Good day. Your nomitoring period has over. Pls note a few things I have observe Here are some example/edits could consider as unsourced content (no verifiable reliable source) and place a associated uncensored warning instead 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and 7could consider disruptive edit. However, overall, I don't see any issues, and if you dont have any question we could move on to the final exam. Please let me know when you are ready. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA:Thank you very much for comments. I am willing to move on to final exam. Thank you.PATH SLOPU 09:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Path slopu see below and all the best.

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 (25%)[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. A user inserts 'sfjiweripw' into an article. What would you do if it was their first warning? What about after that.
If the user is a newcomer and less edits we can consider it as test edit and add appropriate warning. If this continues we can take as a vandalism. So, if the user had received other warnings, I would have place warnings above it (different level). If user didn't bother about this and continue vandalism, reporting to AIV is better. PATH SLOPU
checkY gibberish added by new user usually is the editor trying to test if they could edit and we will treat it as assume good faith edit.
2. A user adds their signature to an article after one being given a {{Uw-articlesig}} warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?
It is a vandalism, since uw-articlesig is already given. Warn with {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}. If this continues, report in AIV.PATH SLOPU
checkY The word "vandalism" first shows in Level 2 warning message. So if it is a vandalism edit then the warning {{uw-vandalism2}} is appropriate. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


3. A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?
Its a GF edit (puffery or promotion). Warn with {{subst:uw-advert1}}. If this continue this warn with level 2/3/4/4im according to cases. If this continuing considering it as disruptive edit is better.PATH SLOPU
☒N If the article is about John Smith, then give {tl|uw-npov1}} warning. If the article is of other topics then it is probrary a vandalism edit. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


4. A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
It is GF edit (test edit), if it is in the first time by newcomers. Warn with {{subst:uw-test1}}. If this continues we can consider it as vandalism (subtle vandalism) and warn them.PATH SLOPU
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


5. 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?
Since user didn't gave any adequate explanation in edit summary and removed the content only stating it as wrong, we can consider it as GF edit and warn with {{subst:uw-delete1}}. If this continues considering it as vandalism is better. But if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions, we can consider it as GF edit. PATH SLOPU
☒N It is good that you assume AGF; however, in cases that the editor delete "sourced" content and indicating content is wrong, then first check the source against the content and evaluate if the editor's claim has any merit? does the source is reliable and directly support the info of the page and does the material is about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? If the source support the content, then a revert and {{subst:uw-disruptive1}} is justifiable. In addition, to avoid edit warring, send a personal customized message over the templated message, suggesting using the article talk page to discuss the problem, as the template message might not address the issue at hand directly. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


6. An IP user removes removes unsourced article, what would you do?
It's a GF edit as per WP:UNSOURCED, but try to find reliable sources for it. PATH SLOPU
checkY. If the unsourced content is a small portion of the article; if they delete majority of the content, then revert and send personal message to question the removal. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


7. An IP user removes a sourced content and stated "not relevant", what would you do?
Warn with {{subst:uw-delete1}}, since it is a removal of sourced contents without adequate explanation. If this continues it is absolutely vandalism. PATH SLOPU
☒N In regardless the edit is made by IP user or registered user, we would treat the issue as per answer #5. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


8. An IP user adds "I going to kill the editor who have reverted my edit", what would you do?
If this is added in user talk page, user page, etc, I'll deny the recognition (WP:DENY). If this in an article it is a subtle vandalism.PATH SLOPU
☒N If the editor trolling such as "I hate you, you are stupid, low life creature" then we DENY them; however this is considered a personal threat and should contact the Wikimedia Foundation and at the same time inform one of the admin of the incident. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
9. An IP user adds "I am very sad and depressed. My parents do not love me. I going to jump out the balcony and kill myself", what would you do?
If the user add this in an article, it will take as GF edit (joke edit) in first time and warn with {{subst:uw-joke1}}. If this continues it will consider as vandalism. May be report as per WP:VIOLENCE PATH SLOPU
☒N We treat threat the same as personal harm as answer 8. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

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.
{{subst:uw-blank1}}
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
2. A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
{{subst:uw-attempt1}}
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
3. A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
{{subst:uw-efsummary}}
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
4. A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
{{subst:uw-vandalism1}}.
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
5. A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
{{subst:uw-delete1}}
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
{{subst:uw-test1}} for newcomer, but {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} for others.
checkY good. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
7. A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
{{subst:uw-advert1}}
checkY If Tim mentioned in then {{subst:uw-NPOV}} if not then {{subst:uw-vandalism}}. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
8. A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
{{subst:uw-biog1}}
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
9. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
{{subst:uw-delete4im}}
checkY or {{subst:uw-vandalism4}}. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
10. A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
Report to AIV. May be add {{subst:uw-delete4im}}
checkY Should just report to WP:AIV. {tlsubst|uw-delete4im}} is not the fifth warning but the 1st warning before any other warning. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 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).
Revert the edit as per WP:DENY. May be leave a note in WP:ANI.
checkY. If you feel threaten this would considered harassment. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
12. A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
{{subst:uw-image1}}
I added only the first level of warning. Other levels can be added in appropriate cases.PATH SLOPU 09:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 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)!
G11
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
A7
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
3. Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
A1 (also A7)
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
4. A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
A7
☒N. Smadoodle is not an animal - nothing found in google - see [4]. This is a blantant hoax. Tag WP:G3
5. Fuck Wiki!
A1
☒N. Pure vandalism. Tage WP:G3


What would you do in the following circumstance
6. A user blanks a page they very recently created.
Tag with G7.
checkY if no other editors have edited the page. I would usually send a message to the creator's talk page and confirm if the editor what the page they create to be deleted as new newer do not know how to use the G7 tag. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
7. After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
Leave a message in talk page about issue and encourage him/her to tag it for G7 ({{Db-blanked}}) or tag myself.
Warn the user with {{subst:uw-speedy1}}
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 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
Its a promotional username. I'll post a friendly message in his/her talk page and tell about the issue and prompt him/her to change username. If user continues with this name may be report in WP:RFC/NAME. If promote company report in WP:UAA
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
2. Poopbubbles
Offensive username. If the user have good faith edit then discuss the user about username change. If the user have vandalism, report to WP:UAA immediately without warning.
checkY It is good to check their contribution edits history. If they are good contributor and insist of on having the username then it should be ok. If they are vandalizing then report to WP:UAA. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
3. Brian's Bot
Misleading username, since it have a suffix bot. Talk to user about username change. If the user do not cooperate, I'll report to UAA
checkY If it is a bot, then it need to be approved at WP:BRFA first before it can be used. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
Too long and confusing one. Talk to user to change it. If do not cooperating, I'll report to UAA.
checkY It is always good to have a conversation with the editor and check the contribution history; however, the user name is not necessarily against username policy, some admin might disagree with me, even though it is hard for editors to collaborate and hinder communication. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
5. Bobsysop
Misleading one. Talk to user, report to UAA if didn't change it.
checkY Pretend to be an admin. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
6. 12, 23 June 2012
Misleading username, since represent date and time. Report to UAA.
{{tick} Confusing username.
7. PMiller
Violation of BLP, since it is a name of an individual who is famous (P. Miller). Check the identity of user via edits. Report to UAA.
☒N I could be the initial of they user first name plus last name. If the user page or edit has not claimed of P.Miller then it is fine to have the username. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


8. OfficialJustinBieber
Its a disruptive one and come under WP:BLPABUSE, since attacking a individual (Justin Bieber). ::Report to UAA.

checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 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)?
Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. So, I don't get in edit war.PATH SLOPU
checkY Make sure the edits revert are obvious vandalism edit to avoid WP:3RR violation. Do communicate with the editor on talk page if the situation is not obvious. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


2. Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
Report in AIV. Reporting through Twinkle (by the facility ARW) is much easy than manually.PATH SLOPU
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
Arbitration Committee, if it between users. Report in ANI can also used. PATH SLOPU
checkY report to WP:ANI if situation could not be solved there then it would be escalated. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
4. Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
WP:UAAPATH SLOPU
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


5. Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
Report in WP:ANI.PATH SLOPU
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


6. Where and how should an edit war be reported?
WP:AN3.PATH SLOPU
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


7. Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
If it is vandalism, report in WP:AIV. If there is a complaint, it had better contact WMF.PATH SLOPU
☒NNormal vandalism we report to WP:AIV, but violations of WP:BLP, we report to WP:BLPN CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


Part 6 - Theory in practice (30%)[edit]

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.
1. diff, warning
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
2. diff, warning
checkY could tag {{subst:uw-delete3}} CASSIOPEIA(talk)
Find and revert one good faith edit, one self-revert test edit, and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.
3. GF-diff, Warning
checkY disruptive but good faith. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
4. Test- diff, Warning
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Correctly report four users (two AIV and two of 3RR to ANI). Give the diffs of your report below.
5. AIV
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
6. AIV
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk)
7. ANI
checkY Report to WP:AN3 instead. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


8. ANI
☒N If you look at the user contribution log here, user seemed to know about WP:3RR violation and no more than 3 edits made on the page within 24 hours time range. Page is protected and suspect IP might have a registered account and if the registered user doing the same as the IP user, (cross check both contribution edits and suspicious with evident of WP:SOCK then report to WP:SPI) CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


Correctly request the protection of four articles; post the diffs of your requests below.
9.diff
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


10. diff
☒N Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. see - [5] CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


11. diff
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
12. diff
checkY CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
See the comment here by admin - seeing a pattern and do remember the discussion on this talk page to familiar yourself on what it takes to qualify a page protection request. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


Correctly nominate two articles for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nominations below.
13. G12
checkY both G11 and G12. See [6]. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
14.A1, A3
checkY. Request CSD correctly but not the criteria. It was A10 and not A1 or A3. See [7]. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Correctly report one username as a breach of policy.
15. diff
checkY - see [8]. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA:Hi greetings, I completed the Final exam. Kindly please check. Thank you.PATH SLOPU 09:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


Final score (round up)[edit]

Part Total available Your score Percentage weighting Your percentage
1 9 4 25% 12%
2 12 11 15% 14%
3 7 5 10% 8%
4 8 6.5 10% 9%
5 7 5.5 10% 8%
6 15 12.5 30% 25%
TOTAL 58 44.5 100 76%

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 76%.

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.


Path slopu Greetings. I hope you gained some insight and knowledge from this program. A note: It is common for vandal fighter to receive unplansant message from time to time, do remember to keep your cool and it comes with the work at times. Always remember, you are doing a good deed for Wikipedia. Do pop by my talk page if I would be of any help. Thank you for your willingness to help Wikipedia in this role. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank User:Callanecc, who is so kind to publish his training methods for this program which would be higher quality than anything I could achieve on myself. Your training program is based on his materials with a few minor tweaks and additional questions of mine. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA:Thanks for being my trainer and guiding me towards the right path in counter vandalism. I am grateful to you trainer! Being a trainer isn't easy, so I just want to let you know that I appreciate all of the hard work that you have put in. You are more than a trainer to me. You have been a wonderful mentor and an amazing companion for me. I feel grateful for having such a wonderful trainer. Thank you for everything! Thank you very much for the training and caring in this academy. I am very thankful for your help and training me the aspects of Counter-vandalism. You trained me about the difference between vandalism and GF edit, deletion, usernames, reporting, etc. I am in the zenith of pleasure when leaving this academy. Thank you!PATH SLOPU 14:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Path_slopu&oldid=946020723"