User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/MaxnaCarta

@

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/Such-change47.

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.

done Such-change47 (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2022 (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 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:

Wikipedia has fundamental principles summarised in what are referred to as the “Five Pillars”. The fourth pillar is that Wikipedia editors should treat each other with respect and civility. Amongst other elements, this pillar involves assuming good faith. Assuming good faith is a very important factor of being a recent changes patroller. It essentially means that unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, editors must assume anyone working on Wikipedia is trying to help the project, not harming. Recent changes patrolling involves monitoring recent changes, often with the help of certain editing filters, particularly useful are the editing filters which detect edits likely to have been made in bad faith. However, these filters can often be inaccurate.

Good faith edits are those that are made with the intention of helping Wikipedia. It is possible, and common, particularly for newcomers, to make good faith edits that harm Wikipedia. In my first few days at Wikipedia, I attempted to change an article in a way that breached Wikipedia policy due to policies on BLP. While my changes required correction due to not following BLP guidelines, my edits were made with good faith, and so they did not constitute vandalism.

It is important to assume good faith when recent changes patrolling. First, Not doing so arguably violates one of the Five Pillars, and any conduct that violates a pillar does not belong on Wikipedia. Second, reverting edits that made in good faith hurriedly may damage Wikipedia. Third, good editors may be dissuaded from continuing to edit, newcomers especially may feel “bitten” which is again behaviour that is discouraged.

Vandalism is different to good faith and has a highly specific meaning on Wikipedia. It requires editing or other behaviour that deliberately intends to obstruct Wikipedia. Edits are often detected in recent changes that are disruptive, against policy, inaccurate, or just wrong. These edits are not always vandalism. Sometimes, vandalism is clear ie: “Your mum” or a random epithet placed into an article, and these sorts of edit require immediate reversion and warning. However, an edit such as “hey” or “edhdsafh” may well be an edit test, and the addition of an incorrect fact could simply be done by accident. This is why we assume good faith and issue a Level 1 warning that does not specifically accuse the editor of vandalism.

It is not always possible to tell the difference between good faith and vandalism. Where the line is blurred between, assume the latter and give a gentle warning template. Editors who are truly malicious will inevitably make this clear in their next few edits. Such-change47 (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Y. If we are not sure about the edit nature, We can also look their contribution log and the editor talk page to see if there is a pattern of vandalism in the past to determine the recent edits. To differentiate the good faith and vandalism edit is the "intention" of the editor. If an editor intends to help Wikipedia, and the edit is considered disruptive, they are still considered a "good faith" editor especially the new editor does not aware their edits are disruptive. Vandalism is a "deliberate attempt" to harm Wikipedia. Editor might edit adds incorrect or unsourced information and this does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal; the key is their "intention". Cassiopeia talk 06:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Good faith

Answer:

(1) This edit was borderline. Referred to Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts as "poo poo" (vandalism) however the edits saying he "continually denied scientific findings for in favour of his own alternative facts" is not necessarily vandalism. Rather, it is unsourced information and while arguably true, is not written from a neutral point of view. So, on this occasion, I welcomed the user with a "welcome, problematic user" template indicating they must write from a neutral point of view. Such-change47 (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

N this is considered typical silly vandalism edit and should place a vandal warning in the editor talk page. Cassiopeia talk

(2) This edit was unsourced and poorly written, and did not really improve the article. Such-change47 (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Y unsourced and not adhere to neutral point of view by using the word " acclaimed" or that like of adjectives. Cassiopeia talk 06:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

(3) here is an unsourced edit, reverted. Such-change47 (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

PS: Honestly, it is hard to locate GF but unhelpful edits on the spot! Other more common examples include those with spelling errors, poor grammar, or just poorly written. Anything unsourced (particularly about BLP) can be GF, but needs to be reverted.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 06:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

vandalism

Answer:

(1) This is vandalism for the following reasons:

• Uploading an image to Wikipedia is not an easy thing to do. It requires some level of skill and understanding to perform. Planning can indicate motive. Sophisticated behaviour that does not help Wikipedia is less likely to be good faith.
• The image is of Jimmy Saville, a man alleged to have engaged in serious sexual misconduct against children. He is deceased and reviled in the U.K.
• The image was uploaded to Prince Andrew's Wikipedia page, and he is alleged to have engaged in serious misconduct.
• On the balance of probabilities, I deduced the person's motive was intended to harm Wikipedia by trolling.
• Their editing history consisted of almost entirely destructive behaviour

So, as a result, the edit was reverted, and a final warning placed on their user talk page. Given the severity of the behaviour and their history, I also reported the user to AIV and the account was blocked for three months. Such-change47 (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Y Good work. I like the fact that you check the editor talk page and contribution log to see their past editing behaviour to determine this edit nature of them. Well-done! Cassiopeia talk 06:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

(2) This is vandalism for the following reasons:

• It is part of a series of five edits, some appear helpful such as "and many more" but have been added subsequent to edits such as "happy birthday to you" and "bbtss bbtss bbttss bts"
• Sometimes edits can be added in attempt to cover up vandalism, while the filter is hard to trick, it does make it harder to review
• Due to the sophistication of the edits, I considered these were not editing tests, but intentional harm to Wikipedia

So, as a result, the edit was reverted and a caution placed on their user talk page. Such-change47 (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Y First of all unsouced content can be removed and we dont place a warning on the talk page; however, if sourced content is removed/deleted without a good reason stated in the edit summary then that is a vandalism edit. This editor made several edit - this edit "f off" is considered vandalism edit. Cassiopeia talk 06:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

(3) This is vandalism because it the removal of an entire section multiple times despite being warned not to do this. Often vandals may come to Wikipedia for the purpose of advocacy or a single purpose and attempt to 'clean up' unfavourable information. The first time this happens, we can assume good faith. However after being warned multiple times with the same behaviour repeated, we can assume this account will continue to intentionally harm our project and consider the behaviour vandalism. As a result, I reverted the edits and reported the user to AIV, and the account was blocked for two weeks. This is a specific incident which only crossed the line to vandalism when it became clear they were here to harm our project. A single section blank may be disruptive, but not necessarily vandalism. Such-change47 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Y. Cassiopeia talk 06:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Such-change47 Good day. Any question regrading the assignment, please let me know here. For other questions not relating to the assignments, ping me on the talk page of this subpage. See above the first assignment. Pls provide hist diffs (revert diff, report diff, deletion diff, talk page diff and etc.) and reasons of your answers as per guidelines on all the assignments Welcome to CVUA. Ping me here when you are done and ready for review. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 09:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi there, all done. Thanks Such-change47 (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Such-change47 See comments above. Pls let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Cassiopeia talk 06:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia thanks! next assignment please! excited! Such-change47 (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2022 (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: There are several reasons:

1. 1 Remembering one of the most important rules on Wikipedia, AGF, we want to ensure editors know their edit was reverted and why!
2. 2 Regarding the above, GF edits need a warning to ensure the editor has a chance to improve
3. 3 For vandals, this lets the editor know we are onto them and gives them a chance to improve
4. 4 For all reverted edits, warning help other patrollers keep track of warnings given
5. 5 Regarding the above, a track record of warnings helps editors know when it is time to report to AIV

Y. Good. 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 05:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

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

• Answer:

1. 1: Where a user is very quickly making many vandal edits in a row
2. 2: Serious abuse like "jews/gays/blacks deserve...(punishment) or n**gas deserve l*nch" etc
3. 3. Violation of BLP

Y. 4im is only for widespread and particularly egregious vandalism and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism. Violation of BLP would have to depend on the nature of the edit. If an editor just change the DoB from August to September and that sort of info, then we dont need to give a 4im warning. Note: In English Wikipedia, the counter vandalism system is a flexible system which means we dont need to give level one on the first offend but depending on the nature of the vandalism edit, we can give level 2/3 even level 4 such as "I will kill you - you nigger gay fucker". However, we would normally give level one or two for most cases of vandalism/disruptive etc. edits. Once you have a lot of experience on counter vandalism and you can gauge the severity of the vanslism edits, then go ahead to give higher warning level if you see fit with good reasons. Cassiopeia talk 05:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

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

• Answer: I'm gonna be honest. I love reading Wikipedia policies and guidelines. However after reading this page countless times, this is the one policy i legit do not understand....my answer is that I often add a warning then go and edit source to tweak it. Obviously that does not "transclude" to every other template? Idk. Sometimes post level 4 warning i leave the same level 4 warning and edit it to say "you have been reported to AIV". That way, i wont get in trouble for reverting and not leaving a warning. Likewise it means the additional warning may get the vandal to back off, and it shows admins a block is well and truly needed as the account continues to vandal.

N Pls read "Usage and Layout" and look for "Always subst the template" under WP:UWUL. We always subst the template if we give the warning manually for not all the warning catogories can be found on Huggle or other counter-vandalism tools so the warning message would not change even if the template you used were to be altered at a later date. Note: Pls also read "Table of templates", "View all multi-level templates" and "View all single-level templates" on WP:UWUL. Cassiopeia talk 05:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

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

• Answer: Report to AIV. However, I must admit I do not have much patience for blatant, irrefutable vandalism and will often check their log. If they are clearly WP:NOTHERE, I may report straight away.

Y It is good to always check their contribution log and their talk page to see the behaviour and the pattern of the editors' edits. However, be a little patient for sometime jump in to quickly to warn a editor without them vandal enough in certain admins' eye might be back fired and or you are not sure about the edit is a vandalism or just a mistake from the editor's part then always assume good faith and give lower level warning or just leave the edit alone (edits such as changing a score of a sport game/ changing of a fight method on a combat sport or the subject/page we have absolutely have not knowledge of. Cassiopeia talk 05:08, 26 May 2022 (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:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits was not in accordance with the interests of the Cabal, and as soon as we figure out how to do so, it will be reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, or harsh realities and dark truths of Wikipedia bias you'd like to expose, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Answer ii:

Hello, I'm Such-change47. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Y pls read the question again, need different level of warning and diff type of warning. Here you have level one just like your answer (i) above. Cassiopeia talk 05:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Answer iii:

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

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

Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Such-change47 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 07:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I am really stuck here. Have read through the substituting page, I still do not know what you mean. Permanent copying of content? I do not understand. Am I not allowed to copy a template, paste it, and edit it? Is that what is being said? Sorry!

Such-change47 Pls read WP:UWUL. There are 7 sub pages where you can find them on the top of the page - Pls read "Usage and Layout" and look for "Always subst the template" and it will show you how to subt a warning template. Pls also read "Table of templates", "View all multi-level templates" and "View all single-level templates" which we will use often. Hope this help and let me know if you still have any questions. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 09:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia all done now. I still dont quite understand transclusion or substituting except to know A. I substitute already because I only use Twinkle to warn and B I have no desire to apply for template editor so as long as I use twinkle or huggle I wont need to worry about adding substitution? Thanks Such-change47 (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Such-change47 Pls see my comment on subst at (3) above. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 05:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I am ready for the next assignment please! Such-change47 (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2022 (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 my 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	1	Added "editing" to article. Assumed GF. Sadly they went on to continue this in other articles, leading to further warnings from others.	Y Test edits are edits make by newcomer on their first of second edit where by the editor edit the page "to see if they could actually" edit Wikipedia. Examples such as "hi", "test", add in random characters (fspofiks;mp) or change one character/number. We term "self-revert test edit" if the editor change the character/number back on their second edit on the same page". Cassiopeia talk 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
2	Test edit	2	Added "unban dhyrbfyty" to article, no other edits, so assumed editing test. Warning left here.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
3	Vandalism (report to AIV)	3	Persistent section blanking, just come off a recent block less than a day for similar vandalism of same article/s, reported to AIV for this and being WP:NOTHERE. Possibly the most relentless vandal I have ever come across. Just kept going! Took ages for an administrator to come online, you should become one! I do not think there are enough admins from our time zone.	Y. Do note some content that was removed was unsouced and that is considered ok; however, edit such as this one is considered vandalism. Since their talk page and contribution log have shown the intention of the editor was to vandalize Wikipedia. Cassiopeia talk 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
4	Vandalism (report to AIV)	4	Redirected Michael Moore to Butt Plug, Cluebot had left level 1 warning for other edits, I went immediately to level 3 warning as the vandalism was blatant, and there was no doubt of the intent. I could not revert as had been undone, so just left the warning. I kept an eye on user contributions, more vandalism occurred, which is shown in the diff I included so reverted and immediately followed to 4, then reported to AIV for continuing to vandalise. User blocked.	Y. Good. Cassiopeia talk 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
5	Vandalism	5	Changed Isle of Man to a republic and referred to Queen Elizabeth as "lizzie the lizard", reverted. Warned here.	Y. We could also check if the editor vandalises other pages by checking their contribution log and if they instead vandalizes other pages, then revert their edits and warn the editor accordingly. Cassiopeia talk 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
6	WP:NPOV	6	That is not my revert diff. Due to multiple edits, you couldnt see the NPOV text the editor had left which was "the subject of wireless networks are totally waste. So please don't waste your valuble time in this area". NPOV warning left here.	N I would take the edit as a vandalism. NPOV edits are those edits that the editors adding/changing/writing the content either enhance/downgrade the subject such as using word "most popular/beautiful/especial / profound//great performance / best fighter/basketballers / unbelievable etc., instead of just record the info as per source in a neutral point of view in a straight, simple fashion. (instead of "He won the fight with unreliable upper cut and slam the opponent to the canvas with Herculean force", we just write "He won the fight via technical knockout in round two". Cassiopeia talk 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
7	WP:SPAM	7	External link to company added to body of article. Warning left here.	Y. Normally, we would see website link for sell sites or URL to live sport games promotion spam link. Cassiopeia talk 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
8	Talking in the article	8	I reverted this edit and used the edit summary reason of their being no reliable source. While there was commentary added to the article which should have been on the talk page, if the addition to the list had of been sourced I wouldn't have reverted entirely, rather I would have deleted the commentary, left in the sourced addition and warned about commentary on their talk page. I did leave a warning here. I added to the warning the need to add sources at the time of an addition, stating WP:SOURCESEXIST is insufficient.	Y. Normal examples would be (literality talking in the page) " hey guys, My high school is the best school in US, come and join us in the chat room" (unsourced/vandalism/and talking in the article). Cassiopeia talk 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
9	Unsourced	9	This one triggered nostalgia from watching Air Crash Investigations when I was younger! User added a lot of content that is almost conspiracy theory style, but I do recall much of what was said being floated about in that episode of Air Crash, something about possible weapons in the hold causing the door to explode. Whilst the additions were not the total quackery we see, they were not quite WP:NPOV, but more predominantly, the lengthy additions were all unsourced and needed to be reverted for this reason.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
10	WP:MOS	10	Looks like a good faith edit by someone who did not know better. Changed 'Avery has worked with a wide range of musicians and is active' to 'she is active language and cultural preserver'. The text did not flow properly and was not grammatically correct. I left a message on their talk page here. This was the closest MOS violation I have found, but it was not an overt violation, more just bad editing. I have not really seen any true MOS violations to be honest, and I do not think they are common in recent changes, particularly as I focus on the true vandalism using the 'good faith' and 'problem' filters in Redwarn. True MOS correction is I think more common over at articles for WP:AFC where good faith users will often not know how lay out an article correctly. Thankfully, mass changes to formatting is not something I see often in vandalism.	N Usually grammatical mistakes would not considered as part of MOS but copy editing in Wikipedia; however, certain issues/mistakes might considered of grammar are considered MOS see "Vocabulary" section in [Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]. We usually see table formatting, bold, punctuations, numbers and etc. Cassiopeia talk 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
11	WP:MOS	11	More clear WP:MOS here, user edits used incorrect headings which was the biggest issue. I also did some basic clean-up, adding some full stops and missing words, then left a WP:MOS level 1 warning on their talk page.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
12	Deleted content without explaining	12	Blanked sections, so left a warning.	Y. Subject did provide a "edit summary" stated "Fixed typo", but the edit was just deletion of content. Cassiopeia talk 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
13	Vandalism	13	Changed meditation to meditaion. Could have been a test edit if first one, but had already had two warnings for similar edits to the same article, level 3 warning left.	Y. Well-done! Good to know you check their edit log and talk page. Cassiopeia talk 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
14	Vandalism	14	Changed morbillion to million and so they were warned.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
15	Vandalism	15	Changed name of football club to something nonsensical for the article so reverted and left a warning here.	Y. Sometime the players have been transffered to other club but the edit was unsouced. However, in this case soccer databases do not indicate he has joined Persepolis F.C. - see here-1 and here -2. Cassiopeia talk 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
16	MOS	16	Changed heading "Enter the Dru" to "Enter The Dru", we do not capitalise "the" in headings. Warning left.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 03:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
17	NPOV	17	Changed "populous" to "popular" about a town, added many weasel words, added themselves to list of notable people. Warned. You will also note I left a warning about potential sock puppetry. Did not report to SPI as it more so looks like they used this account to make edits, then switched to the new more recent account. As it looks like they aren't being used at one time and the edits are not significant, I do not wanna add to the SPI backlog unless I see ongoing switching of accounts and strong evidence.s	Y.Good. Notes: When reporting to SPI, we need to have evidence of the associated edits to report them. SPI can be either editors are WP:SOCK same editor but with different user names/IP addresses or WP:MEAT - different editors but work together to edit on same pages to vandalize the articles or in WP:AFD discussions to vote for "keeping" an article from being deleted. Cassiopeia talk 03:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
18	SPAM	18	Added spammy promo and link to a music video they enjoy watching. Warned here.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 03:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
19	SPAM	19	Adding unencyclopedic external links to bar association sites - in Polish, but sites translate to lists of legal advice chambers, not relevant to the article. Warned.	Y. Note: External links can be added if it is "directly" associate with the subject and usually only one or two external links such a subject official website - see WP:ELMIN. Cassiopeia talk 03:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Such-change47 Good day. See assignment 3 above and do note this is the hardest assignment in this program, so do take your time.

(1) If Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it.

(2) Pls provide article name, hist diffs, editor talk page where you place the warning message, reports hist diffs and any links that is applicable.

(3) Pls provide the reasons/justification/explanate of your answers.

(4) For "You choice" question - Pls indicate what type of edit you are providing - example change "Your Choice" to "Delete" / "Spam" /etc.

(5) If you are not sure about the edits whether is vandalism or good faith edit, pls do nothing and let other more experience counter vandalism editors or editors who familiar with the subject to action.

Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 10:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I am having trouble finding test edits, spam, talking in article. Can I either change these to just vandalism, or do you have any tricks? While patrolling the account creation log, I did find one spam userpage, but that is not recent changes work so it might not count. Such-change47 (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Such-change47 edit that made after the assignment 3 posted can be used for this exercise. I believe you live in Syd, AUS. Most vandalism edits including test, spam, talking in the articles, vandalism and all other edits usually could be found during Friday night and weekend in US time zones as the edit traffic is heavy. Take your time to look for those edits stated in the assignment. Those edits are required so CVUA participants would understand the nature of the edits and how to response to it as not all counter vandalism work is about strictly counter vandalism. I have removed your #11 answer as this assignment is not about good faith edit but find vandalism (including those are specified) edits and the response of those edits. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 00:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia question. For the spam edit, can I use this? I could not revert this paragraph as it is the only edit. So instead, I listed it for Speedy Deletion on ground 11. It is clearly a promotional article about a Spotify content creator, no sources are included, and no amount of editing will be about to re-write the article due to a lack of notability and verifiability, adding to the conclusion it is just an article about a non-notable musician. MaxnaCarter (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Such-change47, The page has been deleted under G11 - see here. However, since the page is deleted, I cant view the content. There is an assignment which covers criteria for deletion (CSD) which you would see the different between a promotional/spam edit and a promotional page/article. Cassiopeia talk 06:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia all good, I found another example and my task is now complete. Thanks!

Cassiopeia Hi there, I was wandering if you still wanted me to find another spam revision? In all my monitoring during this assignment I have only come across one spam insertion. It was an article about broadband speed testing, and someone linked a testing service to the article. By the time I went to rollback, someone else had beat me to it. I am frustrated at the lack of spam edits to find, there are none popping up in recent changes. I do know what spam is and can recognise it, please could we move on from that edit? I am sort of stuck right now unable to progress until one comes along? Thanks MaxnaCarter (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Such-change47, Spam edits are not easy to find, just like "talking in the article" or WP:DUE". It is one of those edits that we have to spend a lot of time in Wikipedia pages to spot it. Cassiopeia talk 02:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi there! Eagerly awaiting review once you are ready, thank you MaxnaCarter (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Such-change47, Will review the assignment tomorrow. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 09:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Such-change47, Pls see comments above and pls complete addition 4 questions. Just to explain a little further regarding G11 and promotional/spam edit - G11 is about speedy delete an promotional "article" usually in new article or in draft / article in creation (AfC), spam warning is about an "promotional/spam" edit. Cassiopeia talk 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I have finished this now, found spam using Huggle - thanks! MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Such-change47, Huggle is a very good counter vandalism tool. Most CVUA participants would not have Huggle as they dont have rollback permission. I usually would recommend editors to complete the CVUA assignment prior apply them. If you are into counter vandalism, Huggle is a great help as it is fast and the user interface is much better than other counter vandalism tools especially if you use the short cut commands. To say that, as we could spot and use the tool to do counter vandalism work we might "accidentally" warn the wrong editor when we click on different user/wrong line. If we know we have done so, pls go to the editor talk page and cross out your warning/or remove the warning and "apologies" of our action(s). Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready for next assignment. It is a beautiful day in Syd today. Enjoy and stay safe. Cassiopeia talk 03:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I am ready for the next assignment please. Also, I have renamed to MaxnaCarta. The old generic username was a little immature. Cheers! MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2022 (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 Such-change47, Posted Assignment 4 above. No exercises for this assignment but only some reading material. Once you have done reading, pls let me know so I would post Assignment 5 for you. Cheers. Cassiopeia talk 03:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia all read, thanks. Ready for next. BTW, I have renamed, please can you ping me at MaxnaCarta so I get the notifications? Thanks! MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi MaxnaCarta, What a fantastic username you got there. As long as the username has already changed formally (requested and granted), then you will get all the notifications to your new user name. It is a good practice to state your old user name in your user page along with the link the edit where it was accepted. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 01:31, 18 June 2022 (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: Fanning the flames will only make the situation worse. Vandals are often looking for a reaction, and trolls absolutely crave recognition. Anyway, my job as a recent changes patroller is to dispassionately revert vandalism and move onto the next task. Getting emotionally involved would be exhausting without any point.

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. Cassiopeia talk 08:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: This is a case by case basis, and one needs to be reasonable. Annoyed editors have come to my talk page. Indeed, once or twice I have made a legitimate mistake and so people come to question that. Good faith editors, even if they are not 100% polite, ask questions or raise points that demonstrate they are legitimately trying to help in their own way. Whereas bad faith editors respond to my vandalism fighting by endlessly reverting their edit and then doing the same edit all over different pages. Bad faith editors are trying to do harm, and this is usually obvious.

Y. Many counter vandalism editors 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 08:58, 25 June 2022 (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: I immediately email emergency@wikipedia.org with details of what the user had said and any threat of harm and the diff. I would also contact an administrator using email if I have it, Discord, or any low traffic method. If the user had left their contact details in the threat, I may also call the relevant emergency service, depending if it was a user in my country.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 08:58, 25 June 2022 (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: As above, it is not up to me to assess.

Y. Contact. emergencywikimedia.org. - see Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. Cassiopeia talk 08:58, 25 June 2022 (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: It takes place in many forms, but almost ways to try and game the system in some way. I have seen many socks have their votes struck off at articles for deletion, and I think a common way for some newer editors getting one of their articles nominated is to rock up with a few socks and vote. Of course this can be an issue at RFX like adminship, though I haven't seen it as yet. This is called creating an illusion of support. It is very frustrating at AFD as it can delay closing a debate or lead to the wrong outcome. Socks may use the accounts to circumvent policies, which apply to each person rather than account. the three-revert rule can be evaded with a sock. Editing while logged out is tricky too, the other day I was patrolling new accounts. I CSDd two drafts for CSD11 - I noticed an IP from the same city that had been making the drafts reverted by CSD nom - so this is showing sophisticated IP hopping to evade claims of sock puppetry. In egregious cases with strong evidence, I report it at WP:SPI, but strong evidence is needed, as those with check-user rights need this evidence to justify an ip reveal.

Y.

Answer: All forms of sock-puppetry are designed to deceive other users/admins and take the form of:

1. Logging out deliberately and using your IP to make a problmatic edits.
2. Creating an addidional unauthorised account or multiple accounts, usualy for block evading or vote stuffing or trying to avaoid 3 Revert Rule. The main account is the "Puppet Master" the others are the "Sock(s)"
3. The use of someone elses account (known as "Piggybacking")
4. Reviving an old disused "Sleeper" account
5. The persuasion of others to back your position in a discussion - "Meatpuppetry"

All forms of Sock Puupetry are to be reported to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations .Do note when we report a SP, we need to include evident (hist diffs) and justifications. Cassiopeia talk 08:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Hi MaxnaCarta, see Assignment 5 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 01:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia all done, thanks.

Hi MaxnaCarta, See comments above and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Cassiopeia talk 08:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Cassiopeia, ready for next. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2022 (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?

Answer: Persistent vandalism from both registered and IP users. This ensures only more experienced users can edit a page, reducing the chance of further vandalism. Highly visible templates can also be semi protected.

Y. Semi-protection applies to pages that constantly attract a large amount of vandalism. Cassiopeia talk 02:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: Where an infrequently edited page with vandalism, BLP violations, edit wars, or disruptive edits from unregistered and new users.

N. the key is low volume vandalism but persistence over a period of time (a few days to a few weeks). Cassiopeia talk 02:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: A very rarely applied protection level on articles. Significant content dispute, edit war, or significant disruption from multiple extended confirmed accounts. More commonly used on template and critical modules.

Y. Full protection prevents anyone except administrators from editing the page.. This applies when there is serious disruption that cannot be addressed by using a lower level of protection or blocking the involved users, such as due to large scale edit warring or content disputes, or persistently being vandalized by users who have gamed the extended confirmed system. Cassiopeia talk 02:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: When a page has repeatedly been recreated following deletion.

Y. When a page has repeatedly been recreated following a deletion from AfD (WP:AfD). Cassiopeia talk 02:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: Rarely. Talk pages on articles are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of vandalism. For user talk pages, severe vandalism or abuse may warrant protection.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 02:36, 30 June 2022 (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: Had Suzuki S-Presso semi-protected here. Page had disruptive edits from three different IP addresses. Third edit said 'third time lucky'. All similar edits in nature from same geographical area. Given these IP's were only editing one page disruptively and not vote-stacking or doing anything significant - RPP instead of SPI.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 02:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Answer ii: Had FC Metz semi-protected here. Page had disruptive edits from several users and IP's.

Y. Do provide your request next time - see here. Cassiopeia talk 02:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD. Done

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

Answer: If I am not meant to go through the criteria, then this is a short answer: whenever a page meets one of the criteria. The CSD criteria are situations were admins can bypass consensus and immediately delete a page. The criteria are hence highly specific and care should be used when tagging articles.

Pls go through the criteria "briefly" in your own words. Cassiopeia talk 02:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Answer again: Yes I found this a bit confusing Cassiopeia - it does say "very briefly no need to go through the criteria", that might be reworded for clarity?

• G1 - Patent nonsense: Incoherent or gibberish. Total nonsense that means nothing, or word salad.
• G2 - Test pages: Name says it all. These belong in ones sandbox or user page not main.
• G3 - Something that is blatant misinformation, hoax, or unambiguously harmful to Wikipedia.
• G4 - Pages identical to those deleted from a discussion.
• G5 - Pages created by banned or blocked users
• G6 - Maintenance category for technical deletions like empty maintenance, redirects, pages created in error, orphaned templates.
• G7 - Author requests deletion where they are substantive contributor
• G8 - Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page
• G9 - Wikipedia Foundation deletion
• G10 - Attack pages that attack its subject and serve no purpose other than to defame, harass, disparage.
• G11 - Exclusively written in promotional manner, blatant advertising, needs to be fundamentally re-written
• G12 - Copied from non-free source and nothing on the article worth saving
• G13 - Stale drafts or AFC's by over six months and have not been edited
• G14 - Orphaned or unnecessary disambiguation pages
• A1 - No context - cannot identify subject
• A2 - Not in English, exists on another Wikipedia project
• A3 - Has no content, only has links elsewhere, attempts to contact the subject, rephrases the title.
• A5 - Article that's been discussed at RXD and outcome was to transfer to another wikipedia project and this is done.
• A7 - Article about a real person, musician, club, band, company, website, individual animal, event etc that makes no credible assertion of importance.
• A9 - Article about a musical recording where the contributing artist does not have a recording and no indication of importance
• A10 - Duplicate of existing article that does not improve on the one already here and a redirect not plausible
• A11 - Article subject clearly invented

Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:07, 30 June 2022 (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: Tagged Draft:SHUNNA_REDD for speedy deletion on ground G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion.

Y. For CSD - Do provide the your message on the editor's talk page of the CSD - see here -1. Cassiopeia talk 02:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Answer ii: Tagged Draft:EUDoctor: Doctors Notes Online for speedy deletion on ground G12: copied text from a website. Got deleted before I could grab the diff.

Y. For CSD - Do provide the your message on the editor's talk page of the CSD - see here-2. Cassiopeia talk 02:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Answer iii: Tagged User:JmoeynNoCappa for speedy deletion on ground U5: Blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violations and C11: Promotion. Excessive writing about self, linking to outside Spotify external links to their music.

Y. For CSD - Do provide the your message on the editor's talk page of the CSD - see her-3. Cassiopeia talk 02:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Answer iv: Tagged User:THEMUSICGODD for speedy deletion on ground U5: Blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violations and C11: Promotion. Excessive writing about self, linking to outside YouTube pages and promoting their music with external links.

Y. For CSD - Do provide the your message on the editor's talk page of the CSD - see here-4. Cassiopeia talk 02:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Hi MaxnaCarta, See Assignment 6 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 22:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there Cassiopeia, all done and I am ready for the next assignment. Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi MaxnaCarta, See comments above and pls provide brief description of "all the CSD" criteria for Q1 under "Speedy deletion" section. Ping when you have done. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 02:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi MaxnaCarta, Let me know if you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 05:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia ready! Thanks MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2022 (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 do not see any violation of username policy here. Appears to be a WP:REALNAME which is allowed unless it is impersonating someone, which this does not appear to do.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 09:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

LMedicalCentre

Answer: This appears to represent a company per WP:CORPNAME but may also indicate a shared a count. My approach will depend on if and how they edit. If there is no edit, I would leave a notice on their talk page about changing their name. WP:UAA is for blatant and serious violations, so I would only report the name if I observe edits that breach policy - such as creating a promotional draft or edit under the promotional name.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 09:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Fuqudik

Answer: Blatant violation of the username policy - indicates an offensive username. Contains profanities, and I consider someone coming to the project with such a username to show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia. Even without an edit, due to the egregious name violation I would report this to UAA per WP:UAAI which does allow a report where no edits have been made if the username is particularly bad.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 09:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

ColesStaff

Answer: User accounts must represent an individual and not a group per WP:NOSHARING and WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. Hence this username implies shared user per WP:ISU. Also is WP:ORGNAME and not permitted. I'd start by talking to the user If any promotional editing was to occur I would report to WP:UAA.

Y . Cassiopeia talk 09:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

~~~~

Answer: Per WP:NCTR there is a technical restriction on a page title with three or more consecutive tildes because of their use as a standard Wikicode signature. Usernames are subject to the same technical restrictions as page titles. As such I do not think this username is possible but if I saw it, I would report it to WP:UAA.

Y. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it. Cassiopeia talk 09:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

172.295.64.27

Answer: Again, this is not possible due to the restrictions on usernames. Per NCTR, usernames may not be an IP address nor look like one. If I somehow saw it, I would report to WP:UAA as an egregious violation of WP:MISLEADNAME which prohibits usernames that resemble IP addresses.

Y. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it. Cassiopeia talk 09:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Bieberisgay

Answer: Violates WP:ATTACKNAME, personal attack on Justin Bieber and constitutes WP:BLPABUSE as it contains contentious material about a living person. I would request for this attack name from any logs to the global stewards team and report to WP:UAA immediately.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 09:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

---

MaxnaCarta, See Assignment 7 above. Cassiopeia talk 08:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia All done. I have covid so have the week off work and using it to get my CVUA coursework done. Thanks for marking it all so quickly. Appreciate it and you :) MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

MaxnaCarta, Sorry to know that you have Covid. Just check on your user page and notice you involved in Dietrich v The Queen - that was an indeed a landmark ruling (Btw, I live in Syd). I have reviewed the assignment above and let me know if you want to move on to next assignment. Do rest up and get well! Cassiopeia talk 09:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Cassiopeia! I am not too unwell, but enjoying the time off. Boss not happy about it being end of FY but oh well. Yep, I studied Dietrich briefly while in law school. When I first came to Wikipedia in December last year as an editor, I liked the article because it was an Aussie law one. It was featured at the time. I tried to save it from being delisted but because I was brand new I had no idea what I was doing and now I am more experienced I know it was nowhere near the modern FA criteria class. So I am trying to get it to GA status. I actually had to go into the old law library and down a section of old books no one ever touches to find a source I need to cite for the article. Like you, I enjoy a mix of article content and the patrolling and internal stuff. Being balanced is a good thing. Yes please, ready for the next one but will give a day or two before having to mark again haha. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2022 (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 2 scenarios each have 5 questions that are based on WP: VANDAL, WP:3RR, WP: REVERT, WP: BLOCK, WP: GAIV, WP: WARN, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, and WP:UN. Good Luck!

Scenario 1

You encounter an IP vandalising Justin Bieber by adding in statements that he is gay.

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

Answer: I would consider this vandalism because without a reliable source, the edit appears to be a deliberate attempt to damage Wikpedia.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

Answer: As contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced it must be removed immediately per WP:BLP given its defamatory nature.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: Assuming no other edits, a Level 1 warning template: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}

Y. or level 2. English Wikipedia counter vandalism warning is a flexible system. Generally, we would place warning level 1 and increase accordingly; however, for serious vandalsim we could place level 2, 3 or 4 or only warning depending on the nature of the edit. It is up to the counter vandalism editor to place appropriate warning level and when you are not sure or for unexperienced counter vandalism editor placing the low level warning message would be recommanded. Cassiopeia talk 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• The user has now added offensive words to the article 3 times. You have reverted three times already, can you be blocked for violating the three revert rule in this case?

Answer: No, per WP:EW reverting obvious vandalism and/or libelous, unsourced material on a BLP is exempt from the 3RR.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: As the editor is an UP, I would use {{IPvandal}}

Y. Cassiopeia talk 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: Added unsourced controversial and/or libellous edits to a BLP three times post warning.

Scenario 2

You see a new account called "Hi999" that has added random letters to one article.

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

Answer: If it is their first edit, I would consider this a good faith editing test.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: If it is their first edit, {{subst:uw-test1}}

Y. Cassiopeia talk 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: Green for the first good faith edit.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• The user now has a level 3 warning on their talk page. They make a vandal edit, would it be appropriate to report this user to AIV? Why or why not?

Answer: No. Level 4 final warning issued. Only after Level 4 warning would I report to AIV in this instance.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: Blocking is at the discretion of administrators. They may apply a block without fixed duration at their discretion. However, a first time vandalizer will usually receive a 31 hour block.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{vandal}} because the account is registered.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: Vandalising post fourth warning. WP:NOTHERE, vandalism only account.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 22:33, 2 July 2022 (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.

• Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option would you use?

Answer: Yes. I'd use rollback.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• If you do revert which warning template would you use?

Answer: Because it is an advertisement article they created and it's a link to their company I'd choose {subst:uw-advert1}. However I could use {subst:uw-spam1} also for adding links. Either can be used.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: I would tag G11 as this is unambiguous promotion of a company. However it may be appropriate to add a second criteria G12 if the text is copied from the website and not properly licenced.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes, {subst:uw-coi-username} and add link to the article they created.

Y. and / or use ==Speedy deletion nomination of PageName==

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on PageName, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cassiopeia talk 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes. Per WP:ORGNAME this username represents the name of a business and as such is considered promotional. Administrator may also block the user for inappropriate promotional behaviours. However Per WP:ISU it also represents shared use as usernames that are simply names of a company are not permitted.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

---

MaxnaCarta, I wonder where you find the time to edit Wikipedia while being a lawyer. On behalf of Wikipedia, I would like to let you know that your contribution is very much appreciated. If you are interested to be a reviewer for new page after completing CVUA, you can enroll in Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School program (NPPS). See Assignment 8 above. Cheers and take good care of yourself. Cassiopeia talk 10:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Cheers Cassiopeia. I do not sleep much, or do anything else. I'm a bore outside work and wikipedia. Just love being at home reading and writing, so Wikipedia has been a brilliant fit for me. It does seem many people here do have a good career outside Wikipedia. I think to enjoy this place seriously one must be a little bit of a nerd, and I am proud to be one! Yep - Definitely gonna do NPP School after this! I was almost tempted to ask to do both CVUA and NPP together but thought I better do one or the other first. Chat soon, MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

MaxnaCarta, Agreed. To be really good in something, you need to be obsessive and have singular mindset - that is how your become great and all the know that. My dad told me not be jack of all trades when I was young, I understood what he meant, but I have so many passions and willing to trade off which knowing more but lack of depth and willing to take my entire life to slowing sharpens my sharpen my chops. I wish I have the command of English like you do that is one of the things of I have struggle all my life since I have irlen syndrome for I dont read the page/texts like most ppl. Good to know you will join the NPSS program after this. It is a good idea to complete CVUA first the NPPS as NPPS is a lot harder but since you are a lawyer and love reading, you would find it easy compare to other participants. Stay well Max and keep warm during this few raining days in syd. Cassiopeia talk 23:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, all done. And people often misuse the jack of all trades quote. The real quote is "Jack of all trades, master of none, still better than a master of one"! So being broadly skilled is okay! MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

MaxnaCarta, See above. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Cassiopeia talk 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia ready for next please. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2022 (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) to undo problematic edits such as obvious vandalism, edits in my own userspace, my own edits, edits by blocked or banned users (to be honest I'd use normal undo or manual revert so I can leave an edit summary instead), or to revert widespread edits by misguided or bad faith actors.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Answer: (May not be used) reverting good faith edits, and generally edits outside the above. Edit warring or using it to gain an advantage against another user is clear abuse of the tool and could lead to removal of the permission or worse.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?

Answer: Undo my rollback and leave an edit summary. I have done this before when realised I rolledback by mistake.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: No because it does not allow an edit summary.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

---

MaxnaCarta, See assignment 9 above. Cheers. Cassiopeia talk 09:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia done, thanks. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

ready Cassiopeia

MaxnaCarta, Reviewed. Cassiopeia talk 05:22, 9 July 2022 (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.

---

MaxnaCarta, Greeting. The next phase of this course is Assignment 10 - "monitoring period", see above. Cheers. Pls make about 30 counter vandalism edits so I may check (if you make more than over said counter vandalism edits, I may not have time to check them all). Final exam will follows after the monitoring period. Do raise any questions if you have any. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 05:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia are we good to go? MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

MaxnaCarta Will check on your contribution log tmrw. Cassiopeia talk 10:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

MaxnaCarta You 7 day monitoring period has shown no major issues. See below you Final exam question. All the best. Cassiopeia talk 04:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Notes

• Pending page protection - (low volume but consistent over a period of time (days to weeks) that means you need to check the article's history log page.
• (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.
• 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

When responding to numbered questions please start your response with "#:" (except where shown otherwise - with **). You don't need to worry about signing your answers.

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (15%)

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: An edit like this as a first edit would appear to be a test edit. I'd leave a soft warning, level 1 test edit from Twinkle on their talk page after reverting the edit.

Y.Gibberish added by a new user on their first edit is usually for testing the editing function out, as wondering can they really edit the page? Apply WP:AGF and warn the user as if this were the case, i.e. with {{uw-test1}}. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 2: Repeated edits are less likely to be test edits or good faith. After the first warning, I now can assume these edits are intentional and not good faith. So I would switch to a level 2 vandalism warning and keep escalating to level 3 and 4. Repeated vandal edits would be reported to AIV post level 4.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (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: Again, as they have been warned this is now vandalism and not a test or error if the behaviour is continuing post warning. I would issue a level 2 vandalism warning.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 4: If it continued, I would increase warnings to level 3, then 4 on the talk page then report to AIV.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (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: This depends on context. Most likely this is a vandal edit, and the first one would result in a level 1 vandal warning. Now you have given "John Smith" as an example, probably because that is a common name. However if for some reason that was the actual name of the article then this violates NPOV and so a level one NPOV warning would be issued.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 6: Escalating warnings for NPOV (subst:uw-npov) or vandalism up to level 4 - then reported to AIV.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: Revert - test edit. Then place subst:uw-test1 on the talk page.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 8: Revert - vandalism and issue subst:uw-vandalism2 and continue to issue escalating warnings up to level 4 then report to AIV.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

9, 10 & 11. A user removes sourced information from an article, with the summary 'this is wrong'. (Q9) First time, and (Q10)after that? (Q11) What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions?

Answer 9: This does happen a lot and I have to check to ensure whether what they removed is indeed incorrect. However, 'this is wrong' is not really an appropriate edit summary - further explanation should be provided. My decision really would depend on the situation. If they remove "Water is wet" from an article and say that is wrong - I'd revert - unexplained deletion and place subst:uw-delete1.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 10: After this, I'd continue to place increasing levels of subst:uw-delete and eventually report to AIV past level 4.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 11: Regular constructive editors can be viewed a little differently, and it always depends. If I saw you, Cassiopeia, removing statistics from a martial arts page saying they were incorrect - well, you have a track record of positive contributions and especially in this area so it something I'd ignore. Editors with a track record of good edits can usually be given a little more leeway and their edits are less likely to appear in Redwarn/Huggle anyway. However, sometimes this may be edit warring and dealt with appropriate by issuing a 3RR warning or reporting to 3RR noticeboard. Editors with a long list of warnings on the talk page or all their edits being reverted are viewed with more suspicion.

Y. All editors should treated the same; however, your view would also be correct. If in doubt, then contact the editor for clarification. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 12: Unsourced content is generally able to be removed, especially from a WP:BLP and so generally I would allow this. However, I expect an edit summary explaining why the unsourced content needs to go. Also, not everything needs a source such as "the sky is blue" - so it may need reverting but provided it appears constructive and good faith then this is fine.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 13: If actually not relevant, leave the edit stand as good faith. If relevant, then appropriate level of subst:uw-delete.

Y. Do check the content to see if it is actually relevant to the article. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (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 immediately email emergency@wikipedia.org with details of what the user had said and any threat of harm and the diff. I would also contact an administrator using email if I have it, Discord, or any low traffic method. If the user had left their contact details in the threat, I may also call the relevant emergency service, depending if it was a user in my country. Per WP:EMERGENCY, I would blank the edit and consider requesting revdel or oversight suppression if any personal information is in the post.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: I immediately email emergency@wikipedia.org with details of what the user had said and any threat of harm and the diff. I would also contact an administrator using email if I have it, Discord, or any low traffic method. If the user had left their contact details in the threat, I may also call the relevant emergency service, depending if both users were in my country. Per WP:EMERGENCY, I would blank the edit and consider requesting revdel or oversight suppression if any personal information is in the post.

Y. In addition, you can also report to AIV. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (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-blank - and the level would depend how many times they've done this before.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 2: subst:uw-attempt - and the level would depend how many times they've done this before.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 3: subst:uw-attempt - and the level would depend how many times they've done this before.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: subst:uw-vandalism - and the level would depend how many times they've done this before.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 5: subst:uw-delete - and the level would depend how many times they've done this before.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

Answer 6: {{subst:uw-test1}} for a first edit and then subst:uw-vandalism2 if a second edit.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: subst:uw-vandalism - and the level would depend how many times they've done this before.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 8: subst:uw-unsourced- and the level would depend how many times they've done this before. (provide edit is not sourced)

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 9: While normally edits like this need warnings before issuing a final warning, given this has happened so many times I would immediately issue {{subst:uw-delete4im}} and escalate to AIV if it happened again.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: Straight to AIV as they have last a level 4 warning - no further template needed.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (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: Sigh. I would need to go to a place I hope never to go, either being reported or reporting. I'd need to report them to ANI and leave {{subst:ANI-notice}} on their talk page.

Y. If you work on counter vandalism work long enough, you would all sort of unpleasant messages, from legal and personal harm threat, all the 4 letter disgusting words under the sky and a lot of trolling.:) All we need to do is be calm or take a break (have a cup of coffee) and do not respond to the message. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 12: If the image is vandalism, then subst:uw-image1 - and the level would depend how many times they've done this before

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (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: If it has been many times, I'd report to ANI and leave the ANIsub template. However if it is a one off and especially if it just some new IP hit and run vandal I'd merely leave the personal attack template: subst:uw-npa1 depending on how many times they had done it and move on.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

14. A user adds "Italic text to Sydney

Answer 14: subst:uw-mos1 and the level depends on how many times they have done this.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: subst:uw-vandalism - and the level would depend how many times they've done this before.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (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 - Pls provide his diff (your revert and report such as AIV and et)	CASS' Comment
Example	Unsourced	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
16	Test edit	1	First time editor changed "denomination" to "pdenomination" and warned here.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
17	Test edit	2	First time editor added "yahye" to a sentence" and warned here.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
18	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	3	Stated person died without a source or edit summary. User contribution shows many such edits made and reverted. Multiple warnings already issued. I issued a level 4 warning. Further vandalism occurred. Report to AIV made here.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
19	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	4	I noticed this editor responded to a revert with a personal attack on patroller. Left a warning about personal attacks (see link to TP). Reported to AIV after editor then insulted me also. User was blocked.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
20	WP:NPOV	5	Stated "No caste pride, people are very friendly". Warned here	Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
21	WP:Fringe theories	6	This is a difficult one. It is not quite vandalism, but also needed reversion. Article deals with slavery/confederate war in the USA. So IP edit raising eyebrow already. Editor changed subject description from "traitor" to "hero". No source provided. Traitor is the technical definition because they were against the union. So it is a fringe theory to call him a hero - this departs from the literature. It also could be NPOV I suppose but fringe theory is best. There is no general fringe theory template - and the person likely knows this edit is to cause trouble so general soft warning left about being constructive here.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 07:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
22	WP:SPAM	7	Inappropriate external link added to body of text - warning left here. Please not that Huggle left the wrong warning, the correct warning would have been about inappropriate external links - however the warning was soft so saw no reason to remove and replace.	Y. Can always manually type warning as per Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
23	Talking on the article	8	This one was weird. User wrote "from my head and meit for the from Yahoo email for you guys have fun with your 87". No idea what that gibberish means but it appeared like talking as opposed to vandalism. Left a warning here.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
24	Unsourced	9	Unsourced statement, not super controversial but lengthy, unsourced, and uses a lot of quotes. Needs a source. Warning left here.	Y I think the hist diff is this one. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
25	Your choice (Vandalism)	10	Vandalism level 2 warning left here.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
26	Your choice (Unexplained removal)	11	3.5k removed with insufficient explanation. Warned here.	Y. I think the hist diff is this one-2. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
27	Your choice (Vandalism)	12	Replaced the year of a source with "Joe Biden". Warned here.	Y. I think the hist diff is one -3. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
28	Your choice (Unexplained removal)	13	Deleted large chunk of text without explanation and warned here.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
29	Your choice (Unexplained removal)	14	Deleted text without explanation in edit summary, warned here.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
30	Your choice (vandalism)	15	Unexplained removal. Warned here.	Y. I think is one-3. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (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: G11 - Exclusively promotional/spam/advertising

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

Answer 2: A7 - Does not indicate why subject is important

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

3. Joe goes to England and comes home !

Answer 3: A1 - Lacks enough context to identify the article subject.

N. should be A7. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: G3 - This is a blatant hoax

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

5. Fuck Wiki!

Answer 5: G3 - pure vandalism

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

What would you do in the following circumstance:

6. A user blanks a page they very recently created

Answer 6: G7- If the sole author blanks an article this can be taken as a deletion request.

Y. We also could write a personal message to the editor to check if they reall want to delete their page which they have just created. Cassiopeia talk

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

Answer 7: Editors cannot remove CSD tags from articles they created. I'd retag and leave a warning on their talk page using subst:uwspeedy template at the appropriate level of 1-4.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (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: Only the AFD closer should remove the AFD tag and so I'd restore the tag and leave a level one subst:uw-afd template

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 9: Restore, and warn with the subst:uw-afd template increasing levels till level 4 and after that report to AIV.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: G13 - Draft abandoned and not edited by a human within six months

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (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: If no edits - ignore for now or leave a soft warning on their talk page about username policy. If making promotional edits relating to the band, report to UAA

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

2. Poopbubbles

Answer 2: Unless the user is engaging in vandalism, I'd leave this. Insufficiently serious to report to AIV unless vandalising. I'd probably leave a notice on talk page about requesting username change ie subst:Uw-username|Reason

Y. If they edits are constructive then leave them alone. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

3. Brian's Bot

Answer 3: Report to UAA unless this is a community approved bot.

Y. Do check their user page first so see if this isn't a legitimate bot account under the WP:bot policy. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

Answer 4: Unless the user is engaging in vandalism, I'd leave this. Insufficiently serious to report to AIV unless vandalising. I'd probably leave a notice on talk page about requesting username change ie subst:Uw-username|Reason

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

5. Bobsysop

Answer 5: Unless this is a declared alternative account of an actual admin, this name indicates incorrect status as admin and I'd report to UAA

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

6. 12, 23 June 2012

Answer 6: This does not breach the username policy in any blatant way. I'd probably leave a notice on talk page about requesting username change ie subst:Uw-username|Reason because the name is confusing as a date. Although, if other evidence exists they are here to disrupt, possibly UAA or AIV if vandalising.

N. Dispruptive username as it would look like a time stamp on article history, so this one too should go to WP:UAA. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

7. PMiller

Answer 7: This is fine.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

8. OfficialJustinBieber

Answer 8: Misleading username attempting to impersonate - report to APP.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

9. The Dark Lord of Wiki

Answer 9: Fine unless disrupting/vandalising.

Y. Even their edits are disruptive/vandalism, the user name is fine. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

10. I love you

Answer 10: Fine unless disrupting/vandalising.

Y. Even their edits are disruptive/vandalism, the user name is fine. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Part 5 (10%)

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

Answer:

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

Cassiopeia there is a question missing here, cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

MaxnaCarta, Thank you for letting me know. See above. Cassiopeia talk 08:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Answer: Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. Good faith edits are not vandalism, and so care must be taken. However reverting to enforce overriding policies is not considered edit warring. When reverting, I must take care to indicate my reasons through an edit summary or the talk page.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: AIV - however sufficient edits are required to report the account - so I would report only once at least a Level 4 warning has been issued and further vandalism has occurred or one of the other grounds such as immediately vandalising when coming off a block. Reporting to AIV is best done through an automated tool such as Twinkle, but one can also manually report to AIV also.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

Answer: ANI with information about the abuse and what steps I have taken to rectify it. The ANI subst notice must also be left at the talk page of the user I report.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: To UAA, can be done manually or with Twinkle.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: To ANI with evidence provided. However users should usually be warned first and an attempt to resolve the dispute made before ANI as this is a serious step.

Y. If many personal attack by the same editor, we could report to AIV as the edits could consider vandalism. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: Report to AN/3RR and notify the user on their talk page - again however user should be warned if its a first offence.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: BLPN - but do you mean unambiguous?

Y. yes and thank you - corrected. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: SPI - I need to provide the main puppet or 'sock master' alongside the evidence that the suspected socks are connected to each other, such as diffs.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: RPP where an appropriate page protection seems appropriate, evidence as to why I am requesting the page protection should be included and it can be done with Twinkle.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: If the editor has been warned up to Level 4 and continues to editwar I can report them to AN/3RR - a notice must be left on their talk page.

Y, There is no level for 3rr. We warn the editor on their 3rd edit warring edit and if they warring again (their 4th edit warring), then we report the editor to AN/3RR. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Part 6 - Theory in practice (40%)

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

Answer: Answer 1: Changing name of football player. Warned here.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 2: Adding random word here. Warned here.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 3: This edit inserted "individual (specifically seemingly anti-white male) into an article. I assumed good faith, however as the edit was not neutral and unsourced, I reverted it and left an NPOV warning here.

Y I think this is the edit - here-4. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 4: Test edit, warning here.

Y. For test edit. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 5: Test edit. Warning here.

N. This is a good faith edit and not test edit nor self revert test edit. Self revert test edit is a new editor makes a test edit and revert their own edit on their second edit so they would know they can actually edit Wikipedia and restore the page to the original state. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 6. Clearly vandalism only account. Account was indefinitely blocked after being reported.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 7a: Same as above. Account indefinitely blocked after being reported.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 7b: User kept adding the same edit to an article despite being warned for NPOV and then 3RR. Reported to ANI/3RR. User was blocked from the article for one week.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

8, & 9. Correctly request the protection of four articles; post the diffs of your requests below.

Answer 8a: Here Page was protected.

:Y. Cassiopeia  talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 8b: Here Page was protected

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 9a: Here Page was protected

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 9b: Here. Page was protected.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 10a: Cass - after a CSD tag is placed and the article deleted you can't see the diff anymore. Please see my CSD log here and see August for the successful nominations.

:Y. Cassiopeia  talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC) 

Answer 10b:

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 10a:

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 11b:

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

12 & 13. Correctly report two username as a breache of policy.

Answer 12: Airacinema - promotional username making promotional edits.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 13: Marketing Institute Ireland - promotional username making promotional edits

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 14: Edit warring involves repeatedly reverting change to an article and without a policy, this could go on indefinitely. It is disruptive to Wikipedia, and stable articles that are steadily edited to be of higher quality benefit the project. Fighting over an edit (and usually edit wars are over something so meaningless...) do not help our project.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 15: When editors disagree on article content and do not correctly go to the talk page and attempt to reach consensus there instead of just bluntly reverting each other or repeatedly restoring an article to the state they think it ought to be.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 16: Because incorrect information on a living subject has the potential to cause harm to that person, it also can harm the reputation of Wikipedia. We are an encyclopaedia - a vehicle for established, reliable information, not supposition, fringe ideas, or sensationalism.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 17: Ignore the troll - report to AIV or ANI as appropriate.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer 18: Never feed the trolls. Reverting and leaving template warnings is more effective than fighting back as its often what the want.

Y. Do not give the troll attention which they seek. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 19: Namely that any auto-conf user can edit an article that's been semi protected whereas admins only can edit a fully protected article.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 20: anything that goes against the purpose of building an encyclopaedia is a waste of time. Personal attacks not only waste time but they harm our project because attention is diverted, they cause editors to cease editing, and they cause drama at ANI or other dramaboards that is best used for editing and contributing to the constructive inner working projects. Comment on contributions, not the contributor.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

---

MaxnaCarta See above Final exam questions. All the best. Cassiopeia talk 05:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi Cass, sorry this is taking a while. I have finished all the theory questions, but I have a few more AIV and RPP reports to find and they are proving a little elusive at present! Often other patrollers have beaten me to it. Good news is that Wikipedia is being efficiently protected, however it is taking a while to finish the exam. I think that having to do so many of the same task slows things down a little. Will be in touch once complete. Happy for you to switch out some tasks for a trick question or something where I can demonstrate knowledge without having to do a live report again. Have many many to AIV and RPP now. Thanks.MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

MaxnaCarta Ok. ping when you have finsihed. Cassiopeia talk 03:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia all done, thanks. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

MaxnaCarta You missed out question 10 & 11 under part 6. Cassiopeia talk 04:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I didn’t, the answer is there. I linked you to my CSD log which is much easier to read and shows my four nominations since exam began. Thanks MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Pinging you in case you missed this Cassiopeia MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

MaxnaCarta Ok. Thank you and will review it. Cassiopeia talk 23:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Final score

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage
1	15	14.5	15%	14.5%
2	30	30	30%	30%
3	10	9	10%	9%
4	10	9	10%	9%
5	10	9.5	10%	9.5%
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 MaxnaCarta 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 as this is a great vandalism tool to use. I use both Twickle and Huggle but they do not have all the warning templates install in the system. So when require, manually subst them. 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 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)