User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/THEFlint Shrubwood

THEFlint Shrubwood You have been removed from CVUA program due to your actions go against of CUVA purpose. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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.

Good faith and vandalism

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

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

A good faith edit is an edit that a user makes that is against Wikipedia policy but they don't know that it is such when they make that edit. It's basically an edit that they make to improve Wikipedia but that edit is wrong and should be reverted. These good faith edits can be things like updating an athlete's new team without knowing policies like WP:SPORTSTRANS , or if they change the word humour to humor in an article about a British television star without knowing policies such as WP:ENGVAR. A vandalism edit is an edit make by a user that they make on purpose to violate Wikipedia policies and to damage Wikipedia. These can be joke edits, intentional factual errors, defamation, removal of content or blanking etc. You can tell them apart by seeing which edit falls into the above categories and then warning the user appropriately. There are also test edits which users make like adding 'hi' or 'hello world' to an article to see if they their edits sticks or what happens if they make that edit. Such users need to be gently guided to use the sandbox and to ask for help if they need it. Test edits should not be labeled as vandalism, they should be labeled as test edits. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Y Right. The key here is the "editor's intention". If an editor's intention is to help Wikipedia, and the edit is considered disruptive, they are still considered a "good faith" editor. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia. Do note, editor might edit adds incorrect or unsourced information and this does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal; we have to look at the intention of the editor and sometime we could see from the recent edits. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:47, 16 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.

Vandalism: In the edit here, the user clearly vandalises by changing the name from Indigenous to stupid. The purpose is to insult them and disrupt Wikipedia. In this edit, the user does BLP vandalism. In this edit here, it's another vandalism edit by a user who was trying to be funny. As for good faith edits, in the edit here, the user tries to help Wikipedia by updating the reported move of Luke Walton to the Kings, but it is a edit that needs to be reverted since the news isn't official yet. Next, in this edit, the user changes Adam Cole's birth place to Mannheim. This seems very plausible but they didn't provide a source so it needed to be reverted. Finally, in this edit here, the user tries to improve the article by adding the birth date, but it needs to be reverted per WP:IMDBREF because it added a source (IMDB) which is largely user generated. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Good Faith

(1) (Adam Cole article) Manheim, Pennsylvania, U.S. good faith edit diff

Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(2) (Luke Walton article) Sacramento Kings good faith edit diff

Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(3) (Emma Mackey article) 1996}} good faith edit diff

Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

(1) The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Stupid Peoples (UNDRIP or DOTROIP) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, September 13, 2007, by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against,[Note 1] and 11 abstentions.[Note 2][2] The groundwork toward this declaration began in 1923 and 1925 with the works of Haudenosaunee Chief Deskaheh and Māori T.W. Ratana, who attempted to bring issues of Canada and New Zealand's failure to uphold treaties to the League of Nations, United Nations' precursor. vandalism diff

Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(2) rapists Linda Dano vandalism diff

Y Good CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(3) this is when dinoaors were made haha the were so funny lookin vandalism diff

Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

---

THEFlint Shrubwood Good day. Not sure you have finished and ready to get the assignment review as you has not informed me. Kindly put the "good faith" and "vandalism" examples as listed. Once it is done and inform me if you ready for me to ready the assignment. (also pls see the talk page).Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

THEFlint Shrubwood Excellent work here. I like your explanation and supplemented with Wikipedia guidelines. See comment above. Let me know if you have any questions and let me know if you ready to move to next assignment. You can reply here. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA. Thanks for the tips. I am ready for the next phase of the CVUA tutoring. So anytime you're ready. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

THEFlint Shrubwood See below the next assignment. By the way, I will usually review you assignment on the within 24 hours after you have submit it. I will leave comments and ask if you have any questions of the assigned exercise. Do check in the next day after you have submitted the assignment so I would either answer you questions if any or I will post the next assignment. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Warning and reporting

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: The purpose of warning the user is to point out that their behaviour is against policy (whether it's good faith, or vandalism). This is done to correct the user and point them in the right direction (with links to policy guidelines and places that they can get help). For vandals, the warning can also possibly make them think about the consequences of their vandal actions and thus prevent them from vandalising further. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Y. 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) 08:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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

• Answer: If the vandalism that the user does is severe enough or if the user has vandalized a lot very quickly. If the user insults another user. All of these are cases where a 4im warning would be acceptable. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Y 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) 08:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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

• Answer: After the opening braces, add subst: You should if in cases like where an update of the template might be made in the future. This means that the no effect will occur on changes that happen in the future on said valid message. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

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

• Answer: Report the user at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(5) Please give examples and please do the substitution (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.

• Answer i:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. I give this out to warn vandals as a warning to not engage in their vandalism edits or they face the risk of being blocked. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Answer ii:

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.

If a user is adding external links to articles with the intention of those links bringing people to their website, then this warning should be given. It gently points out what Wikipedia is not and how their behavior is inappropriate. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

YPls read the question. Need different level of warning. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The new "substitution" edit is good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Answer iii:

Thank you for your contributions, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox instead. Thank you.

This is when a user adds a joke material to an article. It's vandalism and it corrects the user in a way which is constructive and informative. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

YPls read the question. Need different level of warning. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you introduce jokes into articles. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The new "substitution" edit is good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:14, 8 May 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.

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	Trainer Comment
Exampale	[1]	Delete of sourced content without explanation
1	diff 1	This was a user who asked a question in an article about something in the article, so obviously I had to revert it (since asking questions in articles is against policy) and I warned the user with a talk in article warning. If they did it again, I would give them a vandalism warning 2 or a inappropriate humor warning 2. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)	Y
2	diff 2	This was clearly vandalism as the user made an offensive joke about someone in the article. I reverted it and gave them a vandal 1 warning. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)	Y
3	diff 3	I reverted the user for inserting deliberate factual errors into the article and i gave them a uw-error1 message on their talk page.THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)	Y
4	diff 4	User added joke vandalism to article, I reverted it and gave them a 3rd tier vandalism warning. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)	Y Good. The user subsequently was blocked - see here
5	diff 5	Edit appeared to be a test, so i gave that warning to the user. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)	Y Good.
6	diff 6	User was vandalizing, and saying they will never stop and insulting RC patrollers. They also added an offensive word as a category name in one of their previous vandalism edits. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)	Y You forgot to provide the hist diff - [2]. Good reporting. The user has been indef blocked as it is used as a vandalism account only. - see [3]
7	diff 7	User made a test like edit, so I reverted the edit and gave them a test 1 uw warning. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)	N IP user has been editing since 2017, see here 1 and has been warned many times in the past - see here 2. Text edit usually made by user on their first few edits as the user "would like to know they can actually make an edit in Wikipedia without vandalize the article". Adding additional or remove one or 2 characters in the article or "Hi" or remove a few words and immediately add them back but not repeating doing so (in Huggle there is a tag for that) and etc would constitute a test edit.
8	diff 8	User vandalized, adding defamatory stuff so I reverted and gave them a uw 2 vandalism warning THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)	Y Good.
9	diff 9	User added vandalism to article, I reverted the vandalism and gave them a vandalism warning. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)	Y
10	diff 10	User added vandalism nonsense to the article and I reverted it. Since there was a Uw-1 vandalism warning previously, I gave them a Uw-2 vandalism warning. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)	Y
11	diff 11	Editor made joke vandalism, I reverted it and warned them with a level 1 warning since no other warnings were previously placed for the user. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)	Y
12	diff 12	User made a joke edit, I reverted it and left a Template:uw-joke1 warning on their talk page. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)	Y
13	diff 13	User vandalized, I reverted and gave them a uw vandalism tier 1 warning. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)	Y
14	diff 14	User in good faith added someone to a list that didn't have an article (the subject's father did). So i reverted it in good faith and added a bad list entry warning to their talk page. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)	N. Could tag {{subst:uw-unsourced}}.
15	diff 15	User vandalized after final warning, so I reported them. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)	Y Good. this is the hist diff you forget to provide - [4]. User has been blocked - see [5]

---

THEFlint Shrubwood Good day. Well done. See my comment above and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready for next assignment then ping me here. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: What if the user who made the edits under 219.88.225.191 in 2016 sold their home and a new person moved into their home and made thus their first edit was the one i reverted the other day? Even if the user who made the edits under 219.88.225.191 in 2016, didn't move out, someone in their family could also have made that edit that I reverted recently as their first edit.THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

THEFlint Shrubwood I bring your Q7 to here. Wikipedia identify users by IP addresses if they are not registered to Wikipedia, as we have no idea who uses the computer for that particular edits. (note: in Wikipedia, if we dont know the gender of the user, we use gender neutral language and refer the user (singular) as they/them/their). Just as in a school, institute, a shared apartment, some providers assign dynamic IP to their customers, a public venues such as airports, hotels, restaurants, university dooms and etc. we do not know who uses the computer that would be the same we have not idea if it is actually WP:My little brother did it or the user just moved into the apartment/house. That would be one of the reasons we encourage the user to be a "registered user". If a user is registered and logged, and their housemate, 98 years old great great grandfather, or their lovely Persian cat happen to make a vandalised edit in Wikipedia, Wikipedis would still identify the edit made to "the logged in user". Not only the user is responsible not to give their Wikipedia password to anyone, the user also responsible if they allow anyone to use their computer to make any edit in Wikipedia. We identify the "account" and not the person as we have no idea who is behind the screen.

@CASSIOPEIA: I'm ready for my next assignment. Thank you for your feedback. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

THEFlint Shrubwood, TThe next segment is just some reading material on IP address templates and various counter vandalism tools. I dont use Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool. Some the vandal fighters use STiki but most of us WP:Huggle and WP:Twinkle. You would start using STiki if want as Huggle is user right tool. You could apply when you at the end of the program (before the final exam) when you have done more vandalism work in Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Shared IP tagging

There are a number of IP user talk page templates which show helpful information to IP users and those wishing to warn or block them. There is a list of these templates

• {{Shared IP}} - For general shared IP addresses.
• {{ISP}} - A modified version specifically for use with ISP organizations.
• {{Shared IP edu}} - A modified version specifically for use with educational institutions.
• {{Shared IP gov}} - A modified version specifically for use with government agencies.
• {{Shared IP corp}} - A modified version specifically for use with businesses.
• {{Shared IP address (public)}} - A modified version specifically for use with public terminals such as in libraries, etc.
• {{Mobile IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with a mobile device's IP.
• {{Dynamic IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with dynamic IPs.
• {{Static IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with static IPs which may be used by more than one person.

Each of these templates take two parameters, one is the organisation to which the IP address is registered (which can be found out using the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page. The other is for the host name (which is optional) and can also be found out from the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page.

Also, given that different people use the IP address, older messages are sometimes refused so as to not confuse the current user of the IP. Generally any messages for the last one-two months are removed, collapsed, or archived. The templates available for this include:

• {{OW}} for when the messages are deleted from the talk page.
• {{Old IP warnings top}} and {{Old IP warnings bottom}} for collapsing the user warnings and leaving them on the talk page.
• {{Warning archive notice}} for when the messages are archived, and that archiving follows the usually naming sequence (that is, /Archive 1).

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

Tools

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

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

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

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

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

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.

---

THEFlint Shrubwood, Once you have finished reading the material above and ready to move on, just ping and let me know. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I am ready to move on. I've studied the stuff above and am ready to move on. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

THEFlint Shrubwood, Hi please see the 2 assignments below. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Dealing with difficult users

Occasionally, some vandals will not appreciate your good work and try to harass or troll you. In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, you should not engage with them and leave a note at WP:ANI. If they vandalise your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. Please read WP:DENY.

1. Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

To discourage the user from vandalizing. Some vandals and trolls enjoy seeing their vandalism cause waves on Wikipedia or through egging vandal fighters and admins on. Fighting back against a troll or complaining about having to clean up after a vandal just feeds this thrill the vandal/troll gets by disrupting Wikipedia. Denying them recognition (while still cleaning up the vandalism/trolling) is a way to neutralize that and to take the 'enjoyment' out of their vandal/trolling work. It basically takes their motivation away for vandalizing and disruption most of the time. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

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

A good faith user would be asking why I reverted their edit in a constructive way that usually sticks to the point (they may say to me "I went to school with Jane Doe, she is 5 years older than the listed birth year in this article" or as a hypothetical example, imagine if i had reverted two or three of a good faith user's edits in quick succession after seeing them in Recent changes (with a "IP rapidly making edits' tag) adding stuff about a celebrity to articles about that celebrity with said sources being sourced to a blog site that fails WP:RS for example but a new user would mistake for a WP:RS, if the user said to me after I warned them: "@THEFlint Shrubwood, don't stalk me, I don't need to use the talk page, that gossip blog site is a good enough source for this new stuff i want to add". This user would not know about RC patrollers if they are new and would wrongfully believe I am stalking them to revert their hard work to be (in their mind) 'mean' even though i am just upholding WP:RS and WP:WARN. Generally you can tell by their previous edits that they are good faith users who just made an error and need to be educated on what they did wrong and how to fix it. A troll would have made a harmful edit that I reverted and would be confronting me over me reverting their vandalism (ie they may say to me "my edit was funny, you have no sense of humor" or "mind your own business LOL"). There are exceptions to these as not everything is black and white and some users may fall somewhere in between these two areas but this is the surest method to differentiate between the two. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

---

THEFlint Shrubwood, If you have question on "Dealing with difficult users", pls let me know here. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Protection and speedy deletion

Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only an administrator can protect or delete pages; however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion or request protection. If you have Twinkle installed, you can use the Twinkle menu to request page protection or speedy deletion (the RPP or CSD options).

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

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

When there is noticeable article disruption or vandalism from users who are either not registered or not autoconfirmed. This is also done to stop socks of blocked-banned users from editing it especially it,especially for BLP articles. Articles on subjects that are in the news that did something controversial draw a lot of new users to vandalize an article quickly and semi protection often works to curtail that too. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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

When a low edited article is receiving regular vandalism from new users or non registered users. This is done in cases where semi protection would seem too much but where leaving the page unprotected is not an option. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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

When there are content disputes (ie edit wars) between multiple extended confirmed users and where a block would not suffice due to that nature of the dispute-edit war, or when a extended confirmed protected page is receiving noticeable disruption-vandalism from extended confirmed accounts (in very rare cases, I would assume that before Extended confirmed protection was created, if autoconfirmed accounts disrupted and vandalized semi protected pages a lot, full protection was the next step to the article). THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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

When bad articles that have been deleted multiple times are constantly recreated. This is done to prevent such articles from being recreated. There are also title blacklists which prevent certain articles from being created with a specific title (this allows more flexibility than an article being salted). THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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

For semi severe to severe cases of vandalism though protecting article talk pages is rare. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

6. Correctly request the protection of one page pending and one page semi ; post the diffs of your request (from WP:RPP) below.

Pending protection -

Semi protection -

At [[WP:RFPP]], I requested semi protection due to vandalism trends on article in last few days. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

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

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. (substitute # with number below)

(i) CSD#

(ii)CSD#

---

THEFlint Shrubwood, If you have question on "Protection and speedy deletion", pls let me know here. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)