User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Ashleyyoursmile

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

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

How to use this page

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

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

Twinkle Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.

Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.

@Cassiopeia:, thank you for choosing to mentor me. I have enabled Twinkle on my account and ready to go. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 08:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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, WP:VANDALISM and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.

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

Answer: @Cassiopeia: A good faith edit is the one made when the user is not aware that they are doing wrong. These edits are generally performed by newcomers who do not fully understand Wikipedia's culture and guidelines and hence end up making unconstructive and unhelpful edits. However, the intention towards a good faith edits is never towards malice. For instance, if a user adds an improperly cited information to an article, that can be construed to be made in good faith. On the contrary, vandalism edits are a result of deliberate and malicious attempt towards damaging Wikipedia. For example, adding offensive content to articles, or blanking pages could be treated as vandalism. Normally it is possible to distinguish between a good faith edit from vandalism. In situations where we are not confident about the user's intentions, we should assume its good faith edit and make the revert as such. Hence, the intention of a good faith and a vandalism edit is what discriminates the two.

Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. You don't need to revert the example you find, and I am happy for you to use previous undos in your edit history if you wish.

Good faith

Answer: @Cassiopeia:

(1) Good Faith Example1 Good faith edit from a user with the intent to add some useful information to the article without providing a reliable source. No reason to assume vandalism here.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

(2) Good Faith Example2 another good faith edit where the user probably wanted to add a productive input to the article, but was reverted. No reason to assume vandalism here.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

(3) Good Faith Example3 another good faith edit where the user probably wanted to add a productive input to the article, but was reverted due to its noncompliance with WP:MUSIC/CHARTS. Definitely not vandalism edit.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

(4) Good Faith Example4 Good faith edit who wanted to show his opinion and change some wording and was reverted.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

(5) Good Faith Example5 a good faith edit that was reverted since the user tried adding image of the subject of the BLP to the infobox, but ended up adding a google link instead of the file name.

Y. Image file need to be uploaded into Wikimdia Commons and it needs to meet WP:copyright guidelines. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

Answer:

(1) Vandalism Example1 Obvious vandalism since the user blanked the entire page and replaced it with repetitive phrase.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

(2) Vandalism Example2 Obvious vandalism since the user changed the name to an offensive name.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

(3) Vandalism Example3 an obvious vandalism– adding a silly, meaningless occupation to a BLP.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

(4) Vandalism Example4 another obvious vandalism because of edit summary and the nonsensical content added to the article.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

(5) Vandalism Example5 is a case of vandalism, since the user is abusing the non-content tag to a page that doesn't meet the criteria.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Ashleyyoursmile Good day. (1) Any question regrading the assignment, please let me know here. For other questions not relating to the assignments, ping me on the talk page of this subpage Here. (2) Do note, you need to provide the hist diff as per diffs guidelines and not you usual hist diff link. (3) pls note (important) - do not revert more than 3 times within 24 hours on the same article unless the edits are absolutely considered blatant vandalisms for you will be blocked from editing. If you are not sure about the edits (whether it is a vandalism or not", pls do nothing and let other more experience/counter vandalism editors to take action. (5), pls note that the motto of CUVA is "Civility – Maturity – Responsibility." Welcome to CUVA. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: For the examples, I've provided two extra ones in each case if that's okay. I'm done with the questions above and ready to proceed. Ashleyyoursmile! 11:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile Good work. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Thank you for the evaluation. I think I am ready to proceed with the next assignment. Ashleyyoursmile! 09:46, 17 December 2020 (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: We warn users to advise them of actions that can harm Wikipedia and notify them of common mistakes. Warning allows the users to understand the accurate way to edit and gives them several occasions to reform their ways and adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Hence, warnings can help in educating and encouraging the good-faith editors towards helpful editing and stop the bad-faith vandals or editors involved in disruptive editing. By checking the contributions of a user who has been warned, it would be easier to identify if they have been ignoring repeated warnings, which could either lead to higher level warnings or result in a block.

Y. 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) 00:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

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

• Answer: A 4im warning is the most serious of all warnings and is appropriate in cases of gross, extreme, excessive or persistent vandalism from a user or specific IP. It is the first and the only warning the user will receive, ignoring which could lead to a block. It can also be used in cases of blatant vandalism, for instance when some offensive abuse is added to a BLP.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

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

• Answer: Yes, we should always substitute a template when manually posting it on a user's talk page. It is done by placing "subst:" before the template name. The template is always substituted so that even if the template changes, the display of the page on which template was substituted will not change.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

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

• Answer: After a user has received a level 4 or a 4im warning, they should be reported to the WP:AIV. The administrator shall review the edits and take appropriate action.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

(5) Please give examples and please do the substitution (using {{Tlsubst|''name of template''}}) of three different warnings with three different levels (not different levels of the same warning and excluding the test edit warning levels referred to below), that you might need to use while recent changes patrolling and explain what they are used for.

• Answer i: {{subst:uw-delete1}}

Hello, I'm Ashleyyoursmile. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

This is the level 1 delete warning template that is normally placed to warn the editors when they have removed or deleted sourced content without explanation for the first time.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer ii: {{subst:uw-advert2}}

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you.

This template is a level 2 warning template used to warn editors for repeated instances of advertising or promotion on Wikipedia, while they have been already warned once using a level 1 template.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Answer iii: {{subst:uw-unsourced3}}

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing.

A level 3 template that will be placed to warn the editors who have added unsourced or improperly cited material to article(s), and provided they have already received level 1 and level 2 warnings.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Ashleyyoursmile See assignment 2 above. For question 5 - use (example) {Tlsubst:uw-vandalism1}} subs three different templates (different warning and different level of warning}} see example below. Stay safe and best

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.

Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I'm done with the questions above. Thank you. Ashleyyoursmile! 07:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile Reviewed. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Twinkle

Twinkle, as you know, is very useful. It provides three types of rollback functions (vandalism, normal and AGF) as well as an easy previous version restore function (for when there are a number of different editors vandalising in a row). Other functions include a full library of speedy deletion functions, and user warnings. It also has a function to propose and nominate pages for deletion, to request page protection to report users to WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:SPI, and other administrative noticeboards.

User creation log

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

Rollback

See rollback, this user right introduces an easy rollback button (which with one click reverts an editor's contributions). I'll let you know when I think you're ready to apply for the rollback user right.

Huggle

Huggle is also an application you download to your computer which presents you diffs (orders them on the likelihood of being unconstructive edits and on the editor's recent history) from users not on its whitelist. It allows you to revert vandalism, warn and reports users in one click. The rollback permission is required to use Huggle.

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

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

Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Please include at least two test edits and at least two appropriate reports to AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below

#	Type	Diff of your revert	Your comment - If you report to AIV please include the diff	CASS' Comment
Example 1	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[1]	Already had up to level 4 warnings today on this article from other users, so straight to AIV My report to AIV Thankfully they were very rapidly blocked by the admin [2] Later, the admin hid the edits made by this editor - see User Contributions so the diff in 3rd column no longer works unfortunately - see also admins deletion log [3]
Example 2	WP:NPOV	[4]	Added their own opinion "...well known for causing trouble" about a protest group, this editor already had level 1 NPOV warning today, so I gave a level 2 {{subst:uw-npov2}}.
1	Test edit	Hossein Kanaanizadegan: [5]	IP's first edit, placed a {{subst:uw-test1}} [6]	Y. Good. Test edit is the first edits that the new editor is trying to see "if they can actually make an edit" in Wikipedia. Editor usually change/add/remove a letter or number from a word/numbers or place "hi/hello/test". Sometimes the editors revert their own edit on their following edit and we called that a self-revert test edit. Cassiopeia(talk) 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
2	Test edit	Ritabhari Chakraborty: [7]	This was the IP's first edit, apparently tried to fix the spelling. Left a {{subst:uw-test1}} [8]	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
3	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	Cori Bush: [9] and [10]	Left a {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} warning on the talk page, previously the user was warned using a level 1 and 2 templates. After the user violated the final warning [11], I filed a report at the AIV [12] and [13]. The user was rangedblocked 31 hours [14].	Y. Good. If the editor vandalism again after you have place a warning message on the editor talk page, you can place another warning and increase the level of warning. However, if the editor makes multiple vandalism edits in a roll then we revert all of them an place only one warning message. To say, upon checking (we always do when we notice an editor keep on vandalize a page) the editor contribution log and notice they also vandalise other pages, we will go to the pages to make a revert and place warning on the editor talk page. This example that you have given, the editor is considered a vandalism account only as all their edits are in vandalism in nature. The admin blocked the editor but somehow it does not register in the talk page. I have placed warning messages on their talk page and reported them. The editor is currently blocked from editing. - see here-1 and here-2. Cassiopeia(talk) 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
4	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	Asuka (wrestler) : [15] and [16]	Warned first with a {{subst:uw-delete2}} [17], since the user was warned once with a level 1 warning. Then again warned with a {{subst:uw-delete3}} [18]. Following the IP's violation of level 4 warning [19], reported at the AIV [20] and the IP was rangeblocked for 7 days [21].	:Y. Good work. Cassiopeia(talk) 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
5	WP:NPOV	Alvan Ikoku: [22]	A biased pov hence WP:NPOV. However this also seems to be in line with MOS:PEACOCK. Left a {{subst:uw-npov1}} [23] on the talk page.	Y it is NPOV but it is also unsourced. Cassiopeia(talk) 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
6	WP:NPOV	Pylon (band): [24]	Another biased opinion, to the user it appears as a trivia but a song being used in a commercial is not necessarily trivia. Left a {{subst:uw-npov1}} [25] on the talk page.	Y. I can see where you are coming from; however, the sub title could change to "In media" or something similar. We usually look at NPOV where by the content is not written as what it is in plain simple context without leading/stir the editor's emotions to one or other direction - such as "XXX dominated YYY in the fight and showing his superior skills holing the YYY down where by YYY scared like chicken." Instead we just put "XXX wont the fight via KO in round one.". Cassiopeia(talk) 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
7	WP:SPAM	The Queen's Gambit (miniseries): [26] and Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon: [27]	Added a link to a channel that isn't relevant to the subjects of the articles. Left a {{subst:uw-spam1}} [28] on the talk page for the first revert, followed by a {{subst:uw-spam3}} [29].	Y. Good. Cassiopeia(talk) 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
8	Talking on the article	Valley: [30]	Expressing their opinion, left a {{subst:uw-talkinarticle}} [31]	No sure what to it is a about "talking in the article" If you look at the IP address - the editor is from Iran (click on the "WHOIS" on the editor contribution log - here-3 and it shows here-4. I am not sure the editor is talking on the page or just their English is not good enough to express what they want to say. One thing for sure it is NPOV and unsourced. Talking on the article usually involves the editor actually talking to the reader - example "My school is the best good in the world. Call me and I will show you and we could hang out together" or "This is not fair, I tell you, I know it all, the government is cheating. I want you to know that" or "how can we make this article better? the content is wrong. Hey you (whoever read this) can you pls help?" and etc. However, in certain instateces, the talking would be considered vandalism if the nature of the fits the vandalism guidelines, such as "fuck you, you stupid ppl, you dont know anything about the subject". Cassiopeia(talk) 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
9	Unsourced	Lee Purcell: [32]	Adding improperly cited or unreferenced material is BLP violation. Warned with a {{subst:uw-unsourced4}} since they already had a level 3 template [33]	Y. Placing unsourced info is not a vandalism or removing unsourced content from an article. However, it a huge chunk of unsourced material (almost the whole page, then we do place a warning message especially the article is a sub class ( a few lines only). Continuing removed huge of unsourced content without a edit summary is problematic. There are certain edit we need to make a judgement call, the editor contribution log and talk page do tell us about the editor behavior and edit history which we also check. Whether a judgement call is right or not after checking the abovementioned would be subject to the counter vandalism editors experience. If we are not sure about the edit, then leave it alone and let other editors more familiar with the subject or more experience counter vandalism editors to action. Cassiopeia(talk) 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
10	Section blanking on a BLP	Ashley Benson : [34] and [35]	Warned first with a {{subst:uw-delete3}} [36], since the user was warned once with a level 1 warning, followed by a {{subst:uw-delete4}}. Opened a WP:SPI [37] after observing a previous user having exactly similar behaviour and exactly similar edit summary on the page. Following the IP's violation of level 4 warning the next day [38], reported at the AIV [39] and the user was blocked 31 hours [40]	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
11	Vandalism (report to AIV)	List of LazyTown home video releases : [41] and [42]	Unexplained removal of content/blanking. Warned first with a {{subst:uw-delete3}} [43], since the user was warned once with a level 1 warning. Following the IP's violation of level 4 warning [44], reported at the AIV [45] and the user was blocked 48 hours [46]	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
12	WP:SPAM	Motordrome Speedway: [47]	Added a link to a channel that isn't relevant to the subject of the article. Left a {{subst:uw-spam2}} [48] on the talk page.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
13	Removal of maintenance tags	Deerwalk Institute of Technology: [49]	Removed WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SELFPUBLISHED and WP:PRIMARY tags from the page without any explanation. This was the user's first edit, hence placed a {{subst:uw-tdel1}} [50].	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
14	Vandalism	Kim Reynolds: [51]	offensive name change on a BLP. Warned with a {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} since the [52]	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
15	Silly vandalism	Brentford F.C.: [53]	Changing the name to something silly, meaningless. Warned with a {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} [54] since they had been already warned with a level 1.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Ashleyyoursmile Good day. If Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. Pls provide article name, hist diffs, editor talk page where you place the warning message, reports hist diffs and any links that is applicable. Aslo, pls provide the reasons/justification/explanate of your answers. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: is test edit 1 above filled by mistake or is it shown as an example like the previous two? Ashleyyoursmile! 16:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile That was a mistake. I have blanked it so you may answer. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:, not sure of number eight although I've answered it. Can you evaluate the answers? Thank you. Ashleyyoursmile! 18:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile In English Wikipedia, the counter vandalism warning system is a flexible system (note:diff languages Wikipedia operate indipendently from each other). We usually place level one and increase the level and leads up to a block; however, it the vandalism edit particularly severe, or the editor has been vandalized articles for awhile, we can place higher level warning. Also if an editor removed the content states the content is wrong on the edit summary, then we need to check the source against the content removed/claimed. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:, thank you for the detailed review. I am ready to move on. Ashleyyoursmile! 05:57, 21 December 2020 (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:").

---

Hi Ashleyyoursmile, Posted Assignment 4 above. No exercises for this assignment but only some reading material. Once you have done reading, pls let me know so I would post Assignment 5 for you. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I've finished reading through it and ready for the next assignment. Ashleyyoursmile! 06:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Dealing with difficult users

Harassment and trolling

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

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Answer: We deny recognition to trolls and vandals because that's what they want. They want attention and as the saying goes, don't feed trolls- so ignoring them is the best way they will lose interest and stop.

Y. Good. The main point/goal of the trolls is that they want attention. We dont feed them and dont get mad by denying them the recognition that they seek is critical to countering them. If we need to answer certain question, do provide the answer in a mechanical manner without addressing the troll. If troll continues, then let the editor know that answer has been provide and not longer reply their message. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: I would go through the user's contributions and also their talk page, talk page history to decide if I'm encountering a good-faith editor or a vandal. Often good-faith users come across rude on the talk page when reverted but there's no reason to believe that they're vandals. On the other hand, trolls might not always use personal attacks but will find other means to annoy the one who reverted their edit.

Y. I like that you would look at their contribution log and talk page to see the behaviour of the editor to understand the nature of their edits especially when we could not tell if it is a disruptive edits or just being no knowing how to edits/know the guidelines. Do note sometimes good faith editor do get upset when we reverted their edit and place a warning message and convey their message which might not be pleasant for your standard. Many times troll might not use personal attacks but being rude, condescending, put down, name calling and etc. To check on the editors past edits/talk page would help; however, the bottom line is that trolls want to annoy you and good faith editors annoyed at you and that is the subtle different. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Emergencies

I hope this never happens, but as you participate in counter-vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible that you may come across a threat of physical harm. In the past, we have had vandals submit death threats in Wikipedia articles, as well as possible suicide notes. The problem is, Wikipedia editors don't have the proper training to evaluate whether these threats are credible in most cases.

Fortunately, there's a guideline for cases like this. Please read Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm carefully and respond to the questions below.

Who should you contact when you encounter a threat of harm on Wikipedia? What details should you include in your message?

Answer: Threats of physical harm (including self-harm) should be immediately emailed to the Wikimedia Foundation at emergency@wikimedia.org with details of the threat or can be done by clicking Special:EmailUser/Emergency. The message should include the name of the page where the threat was made, or the relevant diffs. An admin could also be contacted using low-visibility methods such as an email, IRC, but it is important to not bring it up via public noticeboards.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

What should you do if an edit looks like a threat of harm, but you suspect it may just be an empty threat (i.e. someone joking around)?

Answer: All threats should be treated seriously and since users do not have proper training to distinguish between a joke and a real threat so we should leave that evaluation to Wikimedia Foundation staff. Wikimedia Foundation should be contacted about the threat using the above method.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Sock pupperty

Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and answer the question below

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

Answer: Sockpuppetry is the exploitation of multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. Sockpuppetry can take various forms:

• IP edits: Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address
• New account: Creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions
• Piggybacking: Using another person's account
• Sleepers: Reviving old unused accounts and presenting them as different users
• Meatpuppetry: Persuading friends or colleagues to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute.

Any form of sockpuppetry should be reported at the WP:SPI with proper evidence on how the suspected sock puppets are connected including diffs of edits of all the accounts and the history of the pages. Evidence including the behaviour of the accounts, style and pattern of editing, etc., should also be reported. For example: the one I'd asked you initially on the talk page [55] and another one here [56].

Y Very good. You have a keen eye for SOCK! Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Ashleyyoursmile Hi, see Assignment 5 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I have answered all the questions above. Can you please review them? Thank you. Ashleyyoursmile! 08:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile Hi, See comments above. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Happy New Year. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Thank you for the review. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you. I am ready to move on with the next assignment. Ashleyyoursmile! 04:58, 23 December 2020 (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. Done

1. In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected? Answer: A page should be semi-protected when significant vandalism or disruptive edits are made by IPs or new users. Usually, semi-protection is requested for subjects that have high level of media interest or have been recently in the news. It is also done to prevent sockpuppets of blocked or banned users from editing.

Y Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

2. In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected? Answer: A page which receives persistent but low levels of vandalism should be pending changes level 1 protected. It allows the IPs to make edits but need to be approved first by pending changes reviewer to be visible to the (logged-out) readers.

Y When vandalism is persistent but low in volume over a period of time (few days to few weeks). Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

3. In what circumstances should a page be fully protected? Answer: A page should be fully protected if there is a content dispute or edit warring going between established accounts.

Y Typically the protection is done for a short period of time. Extremely high profiles pages are fully protected permanently, like the Wikipedia main page. However, fully protected is rare and only admins can edit the page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

4. In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")? Answer: A page is creation protected or "salted" if it has been through a deletion discussion and the subject is not notable, but the author repeatedly re-creates it.

Y Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

5. In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected? Answer: Talk pages are rarely semi-protected, but it is done in cases of extreme vandalism/disruption from IPs to protect the page for a short period of time.

Y Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

6. Correctly request the protection of two page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below. Answer i: Cha Eun-woo: Semi-protection request on December 18 [57], Granted for one month [58]

Y Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer ii: Lily-Rose Depp: Semi-protection request on December 23 [59], Granted for one month [60]

Y Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD. Done

1. In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, briefly to go through the criteria?

Answer: Speedy deletion is carried out for pages which meet any of the CSD criterion so that the normal deletion discussion (AfD, CfD, FfD, MfD, RfD, TfD) can be avoided for these pages. The criteria are as below:

• General: These apply to any type of pages. 14 criteria from G1 to G14.
• Articles: These apply to only articles in main space. 8 criteria. A1,A2,A3,A5, A7, A9, A10, A11
• Redirects: These apply to redirects in any namespace. 3 criteria. R2, R3, and R4.
• Files: These apply to files, images, and other media. 11 criteria from F1 to F11
• Categories: These apply to category pages. 2 criteria. C1 and C2.
• User pages: These apply only to pages in the User: and User talk: namespaces. 4 criteria. U1,U2,U3, and U5.
• Portals: These apply to portals. 2 criteria. P1 and P2.

Y. Pls briefly explain General CSD from G1 to G14 below. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer again (G1 to G14)

• G1: this criterion applies to any page with incoherent text and meaningless writing.
• G2: this applies to test pages, subpages of the sandbox but not the sandbox itself since that forms a part of the userspace.
• G3: its for pages with obvious vandalism and hoaxes.
• G4: applies to pages which consists of content mostly similar to pages deleted recently through deletion discussions.
• G5: applies to pages created by a banned or blocked user.
• G6: this applies to maintenance deletion such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past, redirects or other pages blocking page moves, pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace, or templates orphaned as the result of a consensus.
• G7: for pages requested by its author to be deleted in good faith.
• G8: this applies to pages dependent on a non-existing parent page such as talk pages with no corresponding subject page, subpages with no parent page, file pages without a corresponding file, redirects to targets that never existed or were deleted, etc.
• G9: for pages which are speedily deleted by the Wikimedia Foundation office under exceptional circumstances.
• G10: this applies to attack pages with libel, legal threats or meant to harass a person, BLP, having a negative tone and completely unsourced.

• An example is Entry no. 2 for January 2021 in the deletion log [61].

• G11: this is probably the most common criterion; this applies to pages which are used for advertisement and promotional purposes. The promotion could be of a person, group, organization, etc.
• G12: this applies to pages containing text material that has been blatantly copied from a copyrighted source.
• G13: for pages that have not been edited for the past six months, for instance any abandoned drafts.
• G14: this applies to disambiguation pages that don't typically require one.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

2. Correctly tag four pages for speedy deletion (1 promo, 1 copyvio and 2 can be for any of the criteria) and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below. For COPYVIO pls check the text vs the source by using Earwig Copy detector

Answer i (promo): G11: Promotional user page under a promotional user name, it was blatantly advertising. Deletion log [62], CSD log entry 15 [63]

Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk)

Answer ii (copyvio): G12: Copyvio score was around 90% for this particular url [academy.ivanontech.com/blog/defi-deep-dive-what-is-injective-protocol-in]. Deletion log [64], CSD log entry 12 [65]

Ashleyyoursmile could not find Draft:Injective Protocol (INJ) on your CSD log. Pls provide editor talk page hist diff of the CSD notification. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Here's the diff of the editor's talk page [66].

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer iii (pls state the type of CSD): G11: Promotional user page under a promotional user name, it was advertising. Deletion log [67], CSD log entry 16 [68]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer iv (pls state the type of CSD): U5: Violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, the user space was being used as a personal webpage/blog. Deletion log [69], CSD log entry 6 [70]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Ashleyyoursmile, See Assignment 6 above. As always, pls provide reason/justification/explanation of your answers based on the guidelines. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I have answered all the questions above. Kindly review the answers when you can. Thank you. Ashleyyoursmile! 17:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Hi, I was just wondering if my last ping went through since its been a week since I'd answered Assignment 6. Ashleyyoursmile! 14:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile, Received you ping a week ago. Will review your assignment in next few day. happy new year/ Cassiopeia^(talk) 15:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: thank you. A very happy and prosperous New Year to you as well. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 15:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile, Pls see the comments above. Kindly provide info/brief explanation for 'Speedy deletion" Q1 and Q2 (ii). Once you have don, please ping me. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I've answered above. Ashleyyoursmile! 08:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile, Reviewed. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Usernames

Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol the User creation log to check for new users with inappropriate usernames. There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed:

• Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, usernames that impersonate other people, or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
• Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.
• Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
• Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.

Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particluar attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.

Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).

DJohnson

Answer: I don't think there's anything wrong with the username, unless they are trying to WP:IMPERSONATE someone like Dwayne Johnson.

Y.s long as the user doesnt impersonate any known subject, it is not violating the guidelines then do nothing. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

LMedicalCentre

Answer: Promotional username as its referring to a Medical Center here, so would either leave {{subst:uw-username}} on their talk page or report it to the WP:UAA if they make promotional edits.

Y This breaches of promotional usernames and should be reported to WP:UAA if they makes medical centre page in a promotional way. If they were making innocent edits they should be advised just to change the username using {{subst:Uw-username|Reason}}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

ColesStaff

Answer: Promotional username which also implies shared use. So I would either report it to the WP:UAA if they make promotional edits or leave a {{subst:uw-username}} on their talk page.

Y. Write to the user and brief him/her about Wikipedia username policy and advise him/her to change the username should the user edits are constructive and not violate NPV. (b)If the user edits is aimed to advertise and promote Coles then report it to WP:UAA. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

~~~~

Answer: This a misleading username per WP:MISLEADNAME since it represents the signature format. So I would report it to the WP:UAA.

Y. Nowadays, these types of usernames are automatically disallowed, so you won't stumble across them. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

172.295.64.27

Answer: Misleading username that clearly resembles an IP address, so I would would report it to the WP:UAA.

Y. Nowadays, these types of usernames are automatically disallowed, so you won't stumble across them. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Bieberisgay

Answer: Offensive username since its libel and violates WP:BLP policy, so directly report it to the WP:UAA.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Ashleyyoursmile, See Assignment 7 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I have answered the questions, can you please review them? Thank you. Ashleyyoursmile! 08:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile, Reviewed. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Progress test

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 3 scenarios 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

1) You encounter an IP vandalising Justin Bieber by adding in statements that he is gay. i) Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why? Answer: Vandalism if its unsourced since that would be libel and a violation of WP:BLP.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

ii) Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching? Answer: WP:BLP, WP:VANDAL, WP:LIBEL

Y. Also WP:UNSOURCED and WP:BLPREMOVE. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

iii) What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page? Answer: {{subst:uw-defamatory1}} or {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} if its the IP's first warning.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

iv) The user has now added offensive words to the article 3 times. You have reverted three times already, can you be blocked for violating the three revert rule in this case? Answer: No because I have reverted obvious vandalism, so WP:3RR isn't violated in this situation. Also, in this particular case its an exemption according to WP:NOT3RR, since I'm removing contentious material from a BLP that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to the BLP policy.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

v) Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}}? Answer: {{IPvandal}} since its an IP user.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: I would report the IP for persistent vandalism on a BLP in-spite of repeated warnings.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Scenario 2

You see a new account called "Hi999" that has added random letters to one article. i) Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why? Answer: A good faith edit since its a new account that has made their first edit, so its a test edit.

Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

ii) What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page? Answer: {{subst:uw-test1}}

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

iii) Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)? Answer: Rollback-AGF (Green) since I'm reverting a good faith edit.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

iv) The user now has a level 3 warning on their talk page. They make a vandal edit, would it be appropriate to report this user to AIV? Why or why not? Answer: No since they haven't been given a level 4 or 4im warning yet. However, if the edits made by them are very offensive and indicate a vandalism-only account, I'd report them to the AIV.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

v) If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.? Answer: Yes, if the account is being used only for vandalism.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

vi) Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}}? Answer: {{vandal}} since its an account.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

vii) What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor? Answer: Vandalism after final warning or vandalism-only account.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Scenario 3

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. i) Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option would you use? Answer: Yes, I would revert the edit to the page using Rollback (Blue), since they are advertising and making promotional edits.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

ii) If you do revert which warning template would you use? Answer: {{subst:uw-spam1}} or {{subst:uw-advert1}}, if its their first warning.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

iii) Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article? Answer: Yes, since they have created the page for advertising and promotion so I'd tag it with CSD G11.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Question: Should it also be tagged with WP:G12, since they have copied "a few lines of text" from the company's website?

Ashleyyoursmile,

(1) Revdel -if only small percentage of the content is copyvio then removed the copyvio and make a WP:REVDELREQUEST by using Template:Copyvio-revdel and you can also a message to any administrator in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests either at their talk page or email especially when they are active in Wikipedia for quick action or you can download CV-revdel and after saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.

(2) Copyvio - If big chunk of the content is copyvio then request for G12. - You can use

Earwig's Copyvio Detector in computer to check the content which is copyvio and its percentage against the source pages. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

iv) Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters? Answer: Yes, I would place a {{subst:Uw-coi-username|Laptops Inc}} on their talk page.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

v) Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate? Answer: Yes, I would report the user to UAA under Promotional username with supporting evidence that they are making promotional edits.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Ashleyyoursmile, See Assignment 8 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I think the second-last answer of Scenario 3 has been filled by mistake. Ashleyyoursmile! 10:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile, Removed. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I've finished answering all the questions. Please review them when you can. Thank you. Ashleyyoursmile! 14:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile, Good work. See review above. See the answers of our question on (iii) under "Scenario 3". For copyvio/CSD/AfD/tagging/notability and etc topics are covered in a comprehensive, and a lot harder than CUVA, on Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School program if you want to take part. Let me know if you have any question. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: thank you for the detailed evaluation, I think I'll sign-up for the NPP training as soon as I complete with CVUA. Ashleyyoursmile! 07:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Rollback

Congratulations now for the next step. The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced vandalism fighters to revert vandalism with the click of one button. Please read WP:Rollback.

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

Answer may be used: The rollback feature should only be used for reverting obvious, blatant vandalism that typically doesn't require any explanation, edits by blocked or banned editors, edits made by misguided editors or a malfunctioning bot, and edits made in own userspace.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer may not be used: It should not be used to revert good faith edits and for reverts which require a non-generic edit summary.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?

Answer: Manually self-revert and leave an edit summary explaining the accidental use of rollback. Alternately, the rollback could be followed with a dummy edit having an edit summary which explains the previous revert.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: No, since the rollback feature always generates an automated edit summary Reverted edits by User A to last version by User B.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Ashleyyoursmile, See assignment 9 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I've finished answering above. Please review them when you can. Thank you. Ashleyyoursmile! 07:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile, Reviewed. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Monitoring period

Congratulations! You have completed the main section of the anti-vandalism course. Well done! Now that we've been through everything that you need to know as a vandal patroller, you will be given a 7-day monitoring period. During this time, you are free to revert vandalism (and edit Wikipedia) as you normally do; I will monitor your progress in anti-vandalism. If there are any issues, I will raise them with you and if you have any problems, you are free to ask me. After seven days, if I am satisfied with your progress, you will take the final test; passing this will mean you graduate from the CVUA. Good luck!

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

---

Ashleyyoursmile, Greeting. see Assignment 10 - "monitoring period", see above. Cheers. Pls make about 30 counter vandalism edits so I may check them (I would not have time to check all of them if you make hundred of counter vandalism edits). Final exam will follows after the monitoring period. Do raise any questions if you have any and do read the Notes section below. Stay safe and thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile, You have more than 700 counter vandalism edits for the past 7/8 days for such I cant go through all of them but check them randomly instead. For those edits I have checked, your edits have shown no major issues. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Notes

1. Ppending page protection - (low volume but consistent over a period of time (days to weeks) that means you need to check the articles's history log page
2. (3RR) - Do note you need to warn the involved editor on their talk pages first after the have made their 3 revert on the same article within 24 hour which deemed edit warring with another involved editor(s). If the any of the involved makes the 4th revert then you can report them. When reporting you need to provide the hist diffs and some reason.
3. For (copyvio) - you can check on the New Pages Feed) and look for articles in either New Page Patrol or Article for Creation. Use [https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ Earwig's Copyvio Detector to see if the articles violate copyvio (make sure only report if the copyvio percentage is high and the content is NOT taken from public domain (free to use) sites. So you need to check if the sites are copyright). All proper nouns, document, event name and etc are not considered copyvio. Between New Page Patrol or Article for Creation, you can find much higher changes of articles violate copyvio in Article for Creation section.

---

Final Exam

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (15%)

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

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

Answer 1: If its their first edit, I'll assume its a good faith edit and leave a {{subst:uw-test1}} on their talk page. If its not their first edit, I would warn them with {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} as their first warning.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 2: If the user keeps on inserting such text again on further articles, I'll interpret the edits as vandalism and warn them for each subsequent revert of their edit with {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}, or a higher warning template depending upon the previously placed warning. If they violate the final warning, I would report them to the WP:AIV.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 3: Since they have been already warned once with {{Uw-articlesig}}, so I would treat this edit as an unconstructive/vandalism edit and leave a {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}.

:Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 4: If the user keeps on adding their signature to further articles after already being warned twice, I'll warn them with higher warning templates {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}, {{subst:uw-vandalism3}}, and so on. If they violate the final warning, I would report them to the WP:AIV.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 5: Even if its their first edit, I don't consider 'John Smith is the best!' to be a test edit. I'll treat it as a vandalism edit and warn them with {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} as their first warning.

Y. If the article is about John Smith then a {{subst:uw-npov1}} template should be used. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 6: All subsequent addition of the text by the user to article(s) would be treated as vandalism, and I would warn them with higher warning templates {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}, {{subst:uw-vandalism3}}, and {{subst:uw-vandalism4}}, for each subsequent revert of their edit. If they violate the final warning, I would report them to the WP:AIV.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: This looks typically like a test edit. I have come across such edits during RC patrolling. So for their first time, I would warn the user with a {{subst:uw-test1}} on their talk page.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 8: For subsequent such edits to article(s), I would warn them with higher test or vandalism warning templates. If they violate the fourth and final warning, I would report them to the AIV.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 9: The sourced information removed by the user could actually be wrong. If that's the case, I would do nothing. If the information matches with the supporting source, then obviously I would revert their edit and warn them with {{subst:uw-delete1}} on their talk page.

Y I believe you missed the words "does not' in your third sentence above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 10: For each such subsequent edit of the user, I would revert them and place higher warning templates {{subst:uw-delete2}}, {{subst:uw-delete3}}, and {{subst:uw-delete4}}.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 11: If the user has a history of positive contributions, then they are probably trying to push a particular point of view since the they are removing well-sourced content. So I would ask them about it on their talk page. If they continue to revert and remove the sourced content from the same page, I would first warn them with {{subst:uw-3rr}}. If they make more than three reverts on the page within 24 hours without any discussion with other editors (preferably on the article's talk page), I would them to WP:ANI for violating 3RR and engaging in content dispute.

Y. History and behaviors of the editor does provide some indication; however, if the removing of the edits are well-sourced and the editor keep on removing them after a few warning, we will treat their edits as vandalism. Btw, We place 3RR warning after their third edit and report to WP:AN3 instead of WP:ANI if they continue to make the 4th edit without discussion in the article talk page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 12: If the IP is removing a section or a portion of the article which is unsourced, I would do nothing. If its an entire page that they are blanking, I would revert their edit and place a {{subst:uw-delete1}} or higher template on their talk page.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 13: I would cross-check with the supporting source to see if the sourced content is indeed "not relevant" or not properly supported by the source. If that's the case, I would do nothing. Otherwise, I'd warn them with {{subst:uw-delete1}} on their talk page.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 14: I would immediately email emergency@wikimedia.org with the diffs of the threat. In addition to emailing the Wikimedia Foundation, I would also notify Wikipedia administrators through low-public visibility methods such as email, IRC, or discord, about the threat.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: Since this is a physical harm threat, so I would immediately email emergency@wikimedia.org with the diffs of the threat and also contact any administrator regarding the same privately.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Part 2 (15%)

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

1. A user blanks Cheesecake

Answer 1: {{subst:uw-delete1}} or higher warning template if they'd been warned previously

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 2: {{subst:uw-attempt1}} or higher warning template if they'd been warned previously

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 3: {{subst:uw-efsummary}}

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} or higher warning template if they'd been warned previously

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 5: {{subst:uw-delete1}} or higher warning template if they'd been warned previously

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

Answer 6: I would assume good faith and treat it as a test-edit if its their first edit and warn them with {{subst:uw-test1}}. Otherwise, I would place {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} or higher warning template if they'd been warned previously

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} or higher warning template if they'd been warned previously

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 8: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} or {{subst:uw-biog1}} if its their first warning, or higher if they'd been warned previously

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 9: I would directly warn them with {{subst:uw-delete4im}}

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: Report to WP:AIV

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 11: Clearly a personal attack, so report them to the WP:ANI.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 12: {{subst:uw-image1}} if its their first warning, or higher if they'd been warned previously

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 13: This is vandalism and personal attack, so I would revert the edit and directly report them to the WP:AIV.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

14. A user adds "Italic text to Sydney

Answer 14: This is another typical test edit, so I would warn them with {{subst:uw-test1}}.

Y. If this is their first edit. If not then assume good faith edit and politely explain WP:MOS guidelines on their talk page without a twinkle warning template. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: Vandalism on a BLP, I would warn them with {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} or higher.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (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

#	Type	Diff of your revert	Your comment - If you report to AIV please include the diff	CASS' Comment
Example	Unsourced	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} plus explanation/justification/link to guidelines
16	Test edit	MacKenzie Scott [71]	IP's first edit, they tried removing a character from the name. Warned them with a {{subst:uw-test1}} on their talk page [72].	N This is a judgmental call. If you look at their contribution log -here this would be their 3rd edit. However, the first two edits were about 4 years ago, the first two edits looks like edit by an adult but I not sure about the last (3rd edit) or different person have taken the IP addresses/apartment - see here We treat IP as one user, just like a username, and in regardless of whether it was edited by several persons. That is the reason we dont give our password to other people. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
17	Test edit	The English Teacher (journalist)[73]	IP's first edit, tried to insert the empty ref. tag. Warned with a {{subst:uw-test1}} on their talk page [74]	N. Even though this is the first edit the editor made, however, the intention (we go back to Assignment 1) is "not trying to see if they could make an edit in Wikipedia". Cassiopeia(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
18	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	Sigrid (singer) [75] and Mike Sprayberry [76]	Obvious vandalism, for first revert placed a {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} since they had a level-1 warning [77]. For the second revert, placed a {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} [78], since they had a level-3. Following their violation of final warning [79], reported them to the AIV [80]. IP was blocked 60 hrs [81].	Y. Good work. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
19	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	William McKinley [82]	Blatant vandalism. Warned with a {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}, since they already had level-1 warning [83]. Following their violation of final warning [84], reported to the AIV [85]. The IP was blocked for two weeks (is currently blocked) [86].	Y. Good work. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
20	WP:NPOV	Annie (2014 film) [87]	Obvious POV pushing, warned with a {{subst:uw-npov1}} since it was their first warning [88].	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
21	WP:Fringe theories	Phoenix (plant) [89]	The prevailing theory (as supported by the scholarly article that has been presented as a source) is that the plant derives its name from a Greek word, whereas according to the user, it comes from a Tamil word, which I consider to be a significant departure from the mainstream, accepted theory. So its fringe theory. I reverted the edit as unsourced, and warned with a {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} since it was their first warning [90]	Y. or unsourced. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
22	WP:SPAM	Cardboard box [91]	The user was obviously advertising and spamming by trying to promote their website and product. Warned with a {{subst:uw-spam1}} since it was their first warning [92]	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
23	Talking on the article	In the Still of the Night (The Five Satins song) [93]	The user stated their opinion as to why the song was not created in a basement, but certainly that discussion belongs to the talk page of the article and not the article itself. Warned with a a {{subst:uw-talkinarticle1}} since it was their first warning [94]	Y. Good. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
24	Unsourced	North Alabama Lions men's basketball [95]	Added unsourced content to the page. Warned them with {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} since it was their first warning [96]	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
25	Test edit	MediaWiki [97]	IP's first edit, inserted empty square brackets. Warned with {{subst:uw-test1}} on their talk page [98]	Y.I take this one as test edit. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
26	Vandalism	List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin [99]	Obvious vandalism. Warned with {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} on their talk page [100] since they already had been given level-2 warning.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
27	Vandalism	Onion [101]	Blatant vandalism. Warned with a {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} on their talk page [102] as they already had a level-1 warning. Following the violation of final warning [103], reported to the AIV [104]. IP was blocked 31 hours [105].	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
28	Vandalism	Bayley (wrestler) [106]	Obvious silly vandalism. Changed the name. Warned with a {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} on their talk page [107] as it was their first warning.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
29	Vandalism	Screencast [108]	Warned with a {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} on their talk page [109] as it was their first warning.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
30	Vandalism	Daniel Ricciardo [110]	Obvious silly vandalism. Changed the name. Warned with a {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} on their talk page [111] as it was their first warning.	Y. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Part 3 (10%)

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

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

Answer 1: WP:G11 {{subst:db-promo}}

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

Answer 2: WP:A7 {{subst:db-person}}

Y.WP:A1 is another option.07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC) Cassiopeia^(talk)

3. Joe goes to England and comes home !

Answer 3: WP:A1 {{subst:db-nocontent}}

Y. WP:A7 is another option. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: WP:G3 {{subst:db-hoax}}

Y. WP:A11 is another option. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

5. Fuck Wiki!

Answer 5: WP:G3 {{subst:db-vandalism}} or WP:G10 {{subst:db-attackorg}}

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

What would you do in the following circumstance:

6. A user blanks a page they very recently created

Answer 6: I would tag the page with WP:G7 {{subst:db-self}} since I would take it as a request of deletion from its author.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: Like you have advised me, I would tag the page again with the CSD template and warn the user with {{subst:uw-speedy1}}.

Y. Creator normally cannot remove CSD tags from articles that they created . However, Wikipedia allows creators to use G7 to remove such tags. In this case, we could assume blank the page as a means to activate G7 by the creator. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 8: I would restore the {{afd}} tag on the page and warn the creator with {{subst:uw-afd1}}.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 9: For subsequent removal of the tags, I would warn them for every revert with {{subst:uw-afd2}}, {{subst:uw-afd3}}, and so on. For their violation of the final warning, I would report them to the WP:AIV.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: I would tag the page to be speedy deleted under WP:G13 {{subst:db-g13}}

Y. Before tag G13, always check if the subject/content first, if it is deemed probable meets notability, then make a dummy edit and allow the creator to work on the page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Part 4 (10%)

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

1. TheMainStreetBand

Answer 1: It stands for a band. I would report them to the WP:UAA if they edit the page of their band. Otherwise, I would place a {{subst:uw-coi-username}} on their talk page and ask them to change their username.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

2. Poopbubbles

Answer 2: Offensive username. I would directly report the user to the WP:UAA.

Y. Not really a blatant, but if the editor is vandalizing at the same time, then reporting to AIV for "vandalism-only account". If they are editing constructively, I would discuss with them instead. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

3. Brian's Bot

Answer 3: Misleading username since it has a "bot" at the end. I would directly report the user to the WP:UAA.

Y. Do check their user page first so see to verify if this is not a legitimate bot account under the WP:bot policy. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

Answer 4: I don't think there's anything wrong with this username, just has a bunch of random characters. I would ask the user to change their username.

Y. If the editor make vandalism edits or egregious descriptive edits then I will report it to [WP:UAA]]. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

5. Bobsysop

Answer 5: Misleading username especially if the user is not really an administrator/system operator. If that's the case, I would directly report the user to the WP:UAA.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

6. 12, 23 June 2012

Answer 6: Misleading username which looks like a date and time format. I would directly report the user to the WP:UAA.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

7. PMiller

Answer 7: I don't think there's anything wrong with this username unless they are trying to WP:IMPERSONATE some well-known celebrity.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

8. OfficialJustinBieber

Answer 8: Misleading username trying to impersonate Justin Bieber. I would directly report the user to the WP:UAA.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

9. The Dark Lord of Wiki

Answer 9: I don't think there's anything wrong with this username, so I'd do nothing.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

10. I love you

Answer 10: I don't think there's anything wrong with this username, so I'd do nothing.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Part 5 (10%)

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

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

Answer 1: No, I cannot get into an edit war. Per WP:NOT3RR, since I'm reverting obvious vandalism so that is exempted from WP:3RR.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 2: WP:AIV, specifying that the account is being used only for vandalism. I'd have to provide the diffs of the reverts of the user to explain that.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

Answer 3: WP:ANI, specifying with details and supporting diffs of the abuse by the user.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: WP:UAA, specifying the category of violation under which the username falls and also provide relevant diffs of their edits wherever applicable.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 5: WP:ANI, with supporting evidence and diffs of the attacks.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 6: An edit war should be reported at the WP:AN/3RR with hist and diffs of the page and diff of the talk page where a discussion thread has been open with regards to the edit-warring. This should be done after the user who is being reported has been warned with a {{subst:uw-3rr}}.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, specifying the diffs of the WP:BLP violations made by the user.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 8: WP:SPI, with proper evidence on how the suspected sock puppets are connected including diffs of edits of all the accounts and the history of the pages. Evidence including the behaviour of the accounts, style and pattern of editing, etc., should also be reported.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 9: WP:RPP using WP:TW or manually by following the instructions at the beginning of the page.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: WP:AN/3RR with hist and diffs of the page and diff of the talk page where a discussion thread has been open with regards to the edit-warring. This should be done after the user who is being reported has been warned with a {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their talk page.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Part 6 - Theory in practice (40%)

1-5. Correctly request the protection of five articles (2 pending and 3 semi/full protection); post the diffs of your requests below. (pls provide page name and hist diff of the RPP report)

Answer 1: Pending: Xiao Zhan : [112], Granted indefinite pending changes [113]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 2: Pending: Tim Paine : [114], Granted for 6 months and additionally semi-protected for two weeks [115]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 3: Semi: Eden Hazard: [116], Granted for one month [117]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 4: Semi: Tiger Shroff: [118], Granted for one month [119]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 5: Semi: Justin Jefferson : [120], Granted [121]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

6-7. Find and revert one good faith edit, one self-revert test edit, one test edit and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.

Answer 6: Good faith edit: The dress [122]. The IP here is apparently confused between the two national varieties of English and hence performed this change so its a good faith edit. I warned them on their talk page with {{subst:uw-lang}}[123].

Y. Well-done! Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 7: Self-revert test edit: Jack White (basketball) [124]. This was the IP's first edit, they added an extra letter to the name and quickly reverted it back themselves. I welcomed them with {{subst:uw-selfrevert}} [125].

Y.

Test edit: Alexander Winton [126]. This was the IP's first edit, they added nowiki tag to the page. I assumed it was in good faith and treated it as a test edit. I warned/welcomed them with {{subst:uw-test1}} [127].

N not sure the intention here is for test edit.07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

8, & 9.Correctly report two users for violating of 3RR to ANI). Give the diffs of your report below. (Remember you need to warn the editor first)

Answer 8: Wicked-pedia Editor on List of awards and nominations received by GFriend. Edit warring warning on talk page: [128], Diff of report: [129]. Diff of notification of the discussion to the user: [130]. The user was blocked for 3 days [131].

Y. Good work. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 9: The expert101 on Raz Simone. Edit warring warning on talk page: [132], Diff of report: [133]. Diff of notification of the discussion to the user: [134]. The user was blocked indef. [135].

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

10-14. Correctly nominate 5 articles for speedy deletion; post article names and the diffs of your nominations below. (for promotion and copyvio- you can look for articles in Article for Creation. Pls use Darwig's Copyvio Detector. CSD 12 only if huge portion of the article is copyvioed.

Answer 10 promotion: G11: Draft:BikesCar: Deletion log: [136], CSD log entry 101 under January 2021: [137], Diff of talk page: [138]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 11 copyvio violation: G12: Draft:Mother Teresa: The Saint and Her Nation: Deletion log: [139], CSD log entry 55 under January 2021: [140], Diff of talk page: [141]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 12 copyvio violatio: G12: Nyango Star: Deletion log: [142], CSD log entry 116 under January 2021: [143], Diff of talk page: [144]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 13 Your choice: A7 : TeeZang: Deletion log: [145], CSD log entry 124 under January 2021: [146], Diff of talk page: [147]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 14 Your choice: G11: Draft:Wayone Living Group: Deletion log: [148], CSD log entry 109 under January 2021: [149], Diff of talk page: [150]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

15-20. Correctly report five username as a breache of policy.

Answer 15: Onsurity Healthcare : Promotional username [151]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 16: BarryBrownBot : Misleading username [152]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 17: Xxbigcock69xx : Offensive username [153]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 18: Webpixsolution :Promotional username [154]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Ladyrow : Promotional username [155]

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

19 & 20. Why is edit warring prohibited? What leads to edit warring?

Answer 19: Edit warring is prohibited since it is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder for editors to reach consensus or to resolve a content dispute.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 20: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly revert each other's contributions and keep on restoring their preferred version, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 21: BLPs are always written conservatively, keeping in mind the subject's privacy. So naturally, vandalism on BLPs could potentially harm their reputation and at the same time affect their lives. Any unsourced or poorly sourced information, especially if it is debatable, should be removed immediately and without discussion. BLP articles should document exactly what reliable sources state.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 22: We should try to stay calm and try not to engage with them as much as possible. If they continue harassing, they should be reported to the WP:ANI.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 23: Since trolls feed on attention, so the best way is to avoid and not engage with them. This is the primary reason why we deny recognition to trolls.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 24: Semi-protection is applied to pages which attract significant vandalism or disruptive edits from IPs or new users. Full protection is applied to pages when there is a content dispute or edit warring going between established accounts.

Y. ages fully protected (high risk pages) can only be edited by admins. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 25: Personal attacks are disruptive and can force good editors to leave the Wikipedia community and at the same time discourage new editors from joining the project. Hence, it damages the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia, and are harmful.

Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Ashleyyoursmile See Final exam above. Do provide explanation/justification/link to guidelines and hist diffs where is necessary. All the best! Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I've finished answering above to all the questions, excepting the one on WP:FRINGE. I'm not completely sure that I understand it correctly even though I've read it a few times now. So I may not know how to accurately identify and revert such edit. I'd really appreciate if you could help me out with it. Thank you. Ashleyyoursmile! 19:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile "A fringe theory is an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view." Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Thank you for the explanation. I've finished answering above. Please review them when you can. Thank you. Ashleyyoursmile! 05:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile Thank you for informing. Give me till this weekend to review it. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Final score

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage
1	15	14	15%	14%
2	30	29	30%	29%
3	10	9.5	10%	9.5%
4	10	9.5	10%	9.5%
5	10	10	10%	10%
6	25	24	40%	24%
TOTAL	100	96	100	96%

Completion

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 96%. Well done!

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

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.

Hi Ashleyyoursmile It's been a pleasure to work with you over the past few months. I hope you gained something from this CVUA program. Do download WP:Huggle if you havent as this is a great vandalism tool to use. You can request for Wikipedia:Rollback right here and do mention you have passed the CUVA and mention my name in case the admin need to verify. I use both Twickle and Huggle but they do not have all the warning templates install in the system. So when require, manually subst them. to Do drop by my talk page you have any questions as I am here to help. Best of luck, and thank you so much for your willingness to help Wikipedia in this role. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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