User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/SpicyMilkBoy

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/SpicyMilkBoy.

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.

I've enabled Twinkle. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism[edit]

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

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

Answer:

Vandalism encompasses deliberate attempts to damage an article (e.g. by blanking, adding hoaxes, or inserting nonsense), addition of insults and other offensive content, and addition of spam.

A good faith but unhelpful edit is one where the user is trying to make a genuine contribution to the article, but their edits are counterproductive because they do not follow WP's policies or manual of style, or they introduce errors into the article. Test edits would also be considered good faith.

Telling good faith edits apart from vandalism

When I see an IP or new user adding things like "hi" or gibberish to an article, I assume good faith and interpret it as a test edit. I revert these edits and give the user a level 1 notice for test edits using Twinkle. I would only interpret this as vandalism if they continued to make such edits multiple times after being warned.

I do not assume that edits are vandalism unless it is very obvious, e.g. addition of swear words, insults, obvious jokes/hoaxes or spam. Even things like blanking an article could be a test edit or a simple mistake. When I see a questionable edit, I look at the user's edit history to determine their intentions. If they seem like a new user and/or aren't a blatant vandal, I write a descriptive edit summary and give them a level 1 notice or a personalized message about their edits.

Inexperienced users are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, neutral point of view, verifiability and BLPs. This can lead them to make edits that look like hoaxes, defamation, or agenda-pushing. While unverifiable content, biased viewpoints and BLP violations are not suitable for Wikipedia, I do not assume these edits are intentional vandalism - rather I assume the editors are unfamiliar with WP guidelines and I leave a notice on their talk page informing them of the relevant policies. If I see a user adding content that seems plausible and encyclopedic but lacks a citation, I will try to find a citation for it - for example [1].

. If an editor deleted the whole page and they are the creator of the draft/new page (not for existing article that clearly pass notability guidelines) then it might mean they want their article to be deleted and didnt know how to place {{Db-G7}} on top of the page. We would write a message to the editor and ask to confirm their intent. However if they are not the creator then that is a vandalism even it is their first edit. As for the example you given, while it is not a vandalism edit and edited in good faith, you could place {{subst:uw-disruptive1}} even this is the editor first edit as they removed the "sourced" content and introduced an "unsourced info" without providing edit summary.

The key here is "intention". If an editor intends to help Wikipedia, and the edit is considered disruptive, they are still considered a "good faith" editor especially the new editor does not aware their edits are disruptive. Vandalism is a "deliberate attempt" to harm Wikipedia. Editor might edit adds incorrect or unsourced information and this does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal; the key is their "intention". CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Good faith

Answer:

1. [2] - This user accidentally introduced an error into the article because they did not read the note about the artist's name. This edit was clearly in good faith as many people would think that "Bek" was a typo and someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia could easily miss the note.

. It will only apply to new user since it is their first edit but not experienced user as the hidden text did indicate the reason and two sources in the "Early life" supported the claimed. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

2. [3] - This user made a good faith change to a subtitle, but they accidentally broke the formatting, and the previous subtitle was better written.

. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

3. [4] - This user clearly had good intentions in wanting to write about their school, but the content they added was unsourced and the tone was promotional/non-encyclopedic. I left this user a message on their talk page welcoming them to Wikipedia and letting them know how to improve their edits.

. You would use Twinkle to place {{subst:uw-unsourced}} on their talk page. However, additional personal notes/message are always welcome to specify the reason/provide additional info of the revert when the automatic message lack the specificity the message needed. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Answer:

1. [5] - Insulting the subject of the article

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

2. [6] - Adding incorrect information. If this was the user's first edit I may have assumed it was a test edit, but the user had a significant edit history.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

3. [7] - Replacement of reflist with a spam link by an obvious promotional account. I reported this account to WP:UAA and they were blocked.

. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy Good day. Any question regrading the assignment, please let me know here. For other questions not relating to the assignments, ping me on the talk page of this subpage Here. See above the first assignment. Ping me here when you are done and ready for review. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I've completed this assignment. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy Well done. See my comments above and let me know if you have any questions, if not, then do inform when you are ready to move on to next assignment. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Thanks for your comments. I' m ready to do the next assignment. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Warning and reporting[edit]

When you use Twinkle to warn a user, you have a number of options to choose from: you can select the kind of warning (for different offences), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4, for increasing severity). Knowing which warning to issue and what level is very important. Further information can be found at WP:WARN and WP:UWUL.

Please answer the following questions

(1) Why do we warn users?

Answer: Warnings are used to educate users about how their actions are considered unconstructive and, in cases of vandalism, bad faith editing or persistent noncompliance with guidelines, to deter users from making such edits by informing them that they could be blocked. Inexperienced users may not be aware that their edits are unconstructive (e.g. adding unsourced or POV content), so using a level 1 warning that assumes good faith can help them improve their editing skills and avoid making these mistakes in the future. Higher level warnings are appropriate to use when the user has previously been warned but refuses to comply with guidelines, or when a user's edits are clearly in bad faith, so as to communicate the seriousness of these problems and encourage them to stop their disruptive editing.

very well. Right. 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) 03:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: This would be appropriate if the user is committing large amounts of vandalism or if the vandalism is extremely offensive (e.g. racial slurs, egregious BLP violations, or vandalizing pages with pornographic images).

. good. 4im is only for widespread and particularly egregious vandalism and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes, this is done to ensure that the message on the talk page will not change even if the template is changed. Twinkle does this automatically, but if you had to do it manually you would type {{subst:templatenamehere}}

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Use Twinkle to report them to WP:AIV with the reason "vandalism after final warning".

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer i:

Hello, I'm SpicyMilkBoy. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This warning would be used if a user removes valid content from a page without leaving a descriptive edit summary explaining why they did so. Since it is a level 1 template, it is appropriate to use if it is the first time the user has done this and if the edits are not obviously in bad faith.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Answer ii:

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. 14:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This warning would be used if a user adds external links that are promotional or otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia multiple times or after receiving a level 1 warning.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Answer iii:

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Article, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This warning would be used if a user has been committing serious and persistent BLP violations in bad faith, i.e. intentionally defaming the subject of an article.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy See assignment 2 above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I've completed the assignment. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy Good work. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready for the next assignment. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I'm ready for the next assignment. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Tools[edit]

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

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

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

Twinkle[edit]

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

User creation log[edit]

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

Rollback[edit]

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

STiki[edit]

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

Huggle[edit]

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

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

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

Assigment[edit]

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

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment - If you report to AIV please include the diff	CASS' Comment
Example	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
1	[8]	Changed figure to one that is not in linked source - {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}	NThe editor changed faulty figure - check the source. A {{subst:uw-vandal1}} should be given. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
2	[9]	Test edit - {{subst:uw-test1}}	Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
3	[10]	Vandalism - I used {{subst:uw-vand2}} because the user had a recent level 1 warning	Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
4	[11]	Test edit - {{subst:uw-test1}}	Y. Editor has editor 3 times before but the edits were made in 2008 and 2009. Probably new editor who share the IP address. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
5	[12]	Vandalism - I used {{subst:uw-vand3}} because the user already had a level 1 warning and the vandalism was repeated and offensive	Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
6	[13]	Vandalism - This user had made 2 previous edits vandalizing content about American artists, which I warned them for, so I used {{subst:uw-vand3}}	Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
7	[14]	Not adhering to neutral point of view - {{subst:uw-pov1}}	N. Should be {{subst:uw-vand1}} for "as a Young Messiah" and "Oh My Freaking Lord I love This Guy, H e is a Sweetheart!!" . If editor change the text and make it NPOV then tag {{subst:uw-pov1}}
8	[15], [16], [17]	I initially gave this user {{subst:uw-pov2}} for making multiple derogatory edits to these pages. They continued to vandalize the pages so I gave them {{subst:uw-biog4}}. The vandalism did not stop, so I reported them to AIV for vandalism after final warning ([18]) and they were blocked. I realized a short time later that I made a mistake by using {{subst:uw-biog4}} because the subjects of the articles are deceased - I did not realize that because I didn't read the articles carefully. Knowing this, I would have used {{subst:uw-pov4}} or {{subst:uw-vand4}} instead.	Y.Thank for the explanation. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
9	[19]	Adding promotional content - {{subst:uw-spam1}}	Y. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
10	[20]	Changing "penis" to humorous slang term - {{subst:uw-joke1}}	Y.Could provide {{subst:uw-vandal}} as well. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
11	[21]	Original research and POV edit. I used {{subst:uw-nor1}}. I'm curious, is there a way to address multiple issues in one warning?	N. Even it is the editor first edit, a level 2 for {{subst:uw-vand2}} should be given for stating a race as terrorist - this harm the page. You can always add personal message indicating in the Twinkle box before saving the edit or just create a new message on the user talk page.
12	[22]	I gave this user {{subst:uw-biog4im}} because this is clearly a bad faith and gratuitously offensive edit to a BLP.	Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
13	[23]	I did not warn this user because another user had already given them a level 4 warning. I reported them to AIV ([24]} for vandalism after final warning.	Y. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
14	[25]	This user made repeated vandalistic edits to this page. I initially gave them {{subst:uw-vand3}} and then used {{subst:uw-vand4}} when they continued to vandalize. Because they vandalized after the final warning, I reported them to AIV ([26]) and they were blocked.	Y. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
15	[27]	This user replaced sourced information with unsourced information. I gave them {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}	Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy Good day. Do download/install STiki, for it would be easy to see the recent edits, if you havent. Note you can use both STiki or Twinkle tool whichever to suit you needs on template use as I dont think STiki has all the templates as Twinkle would have, and if Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. I use both Twinkle and Huggle (a better tool and a preference which is a user right tool ) and you apply at the end or after of the program. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Thank you for the information. I just had one question before I start - do the edits I revert for this assignment have to be obvious vandalism or can they be good faith unconstructive edits as well? Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy Both as per WP:WARN. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Thanks for the clarification. I tried to download STiki, but I can't use it as I don't have 1000 mainspace edits yet, so I've been using Twinkle for this assignment. Hope that's ok. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I've finished the assignment. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi SpicyMilkBoy see above comment and let me know if you have questions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Thank you for the corrections. In the cases you marked wrong I tried to assume good faith by using a low level/non vandalism warning, but now I realize that it would be more appropriate to use the warnings you suggested since the edits were likely in bad faith. I will be more bold about using higher level warnings for probable bad faith edits in the future. I am ready to move on to the next assignment if you are comfortable with that. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Shared IP tagging[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi SpicyMilkBoy, 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) 12:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Thank you for the info. I knew that Twinkle automatically adds the shared IP notice when warning an IP, but I didn't know about the more specific notices. I will make sure to use these when appropriate. I'm ready to move on to Assignment 5. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users[edit]

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

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Answer: Trolls and vandals engage in offensive behaviour to provoke other users and get attention. Their goal is to make people angry and disrupt the encyclopedia. By reverting their edits and refusing to engage with them except to leave a warning or report them to AIV, we prevent them from having the satisfaction of successfully "trolling" someone and discourage this behaviour.

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

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

Answer: If the edits you reverted were clearly in bad faith, the user is likely to be a troll. Also, trolls will often use personal attacks or be argumentative when asking why you reverted their edit, while most good faith users will stay civil even if they are frustrated. It can be helpful to look at the user's history to see if their other edits look like intentional vandalism or like a new user who doesn't understand editing guidelines.

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

Hi SpicyMilkBoy, see Assignment 5 above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I've completed the assignment. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy, See comment and more personal attacks info/exercise will come at the later assignment. Let me know if you have any question or you are ready to move on to next assignment.Have a wonderful day. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Thanks for the comments. In my answer I was using "personal attacks" to refer to things like name calling and excessive rudeness but I realize now that that doesn't quite fit the definition at WP:NPA. I'm ready for the next assignment. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy, Do note - althougth it is not consider WP:NPA, rude comments or harassment are considered non [[WP:CIVIL], one of Wikipedia code of conduct and one of the Wikipedia 5 pillar WP:5P. Just as disruptive edit is not considered vandalism, both uncivil and disruptive edits, if an editor persistent, continues doing the same action after warnings, they could be reported and could be blocked from editing.

Protection and speedy deletion[edit]

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

Protection[edit]

Please read the protection policy.

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

Answer: Semi-protection prevents IPs and non-autoconfirmed users from editing the page. Pages should be semi-protected if they receive persistent vandalism, disruptive editing or policy violations from IPs and new users, including sockpuppets.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Pending changes protection allows IPs and non-autoconfirmed users to edit pages, but their edits are not visible to logged out users until they are accepted by a pending changes reviewer. Pending changes protection is typically applied for the same reason as semi-protection, but PCP is only used on pages with a low edit rate because it would otherwise create an unacceptably large backlog. PCP may also be applied temporarily if the subject is receiving a large amount of media attention, as this often results in an increase in both vandalistic and constructive editing from new users.

.The key is low volumn but persistent over time. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Full protection prevents anyone except administrators from editing the page. This may be done if there is serious disruption that cannot be addressed by using a lower level of protection or blocking the involved users. For example, an article may be temporarily put under full protection due to large scale edit warring or content disputes, or if it is persistently being vandalized by users who have gamed the extended confirmed system.

. However, permanent full protection applied to articles for long period of time is rare. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Salting prevents users from creating a page with a given title. This is done if an article that is unsuitable for Wikipedia (e.g. promotional or not notable) has repeatedly been recreated after deletion.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Because this prevents new users and IPs from interacting with the user in question, this is only done if the talk page is receiving large amounts of offensive vandalism, and it is only implemented for a short time.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: [28] Requested temporary semi-protection for Louis XIV of France - the page was previously under pending changes protection but it was receiving a high volume of vandalism from an IP hopping vandal, which was clogging up the pending changes log. Therefore, I felt that temporary semi-protection would be more suitable. The page was semi-protected for 3 days [29]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Please read WP:CSD.

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

Answer: Pages should be speedily deleted if they are clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia and no amount of cleanup will fix the issues. Examples of pages that would meet this criteria are: a page that is gibberish or word salad; an obvious hoax; a page that is entirely copyvio; or a page that makes no attempt to describe why a subject is notable. Pages may also be speedily deleted if the page creator requests it and no other users have made significant edits to the page, or for housekeeping reasons, e.g. deleting the talk page of a page that was deleted.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

2. Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons - they can be for any of the criteria) and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below. Answer:

[30] [31] - Tagged for CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising. Page was advertising a non notable youtube channel with the same name as the user who created the article.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

[32] [33]- Tagged for CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright violation. Page was copy-pasted from [34]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy, See Assignment 6 above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy, Have you finished with the assignment and want a review? CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I'm still working on it. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I've finished the assignment. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy, Well done. Let me know if you have any questions or you want me to post the next assignment. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Thanks. I'm ready for the next assignment. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Usernames[edit]

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

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

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

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

DJohnson

Answer: This username would be acceptable unless the user is editing articles about "D. Johnson", in which case it could be a misleading username or a conflict of interest. If this is the case I would leave {{subst:uw-coi-username}} or {{subst:uw-username}} on their talk page.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

LMedicalCentre

Answer: This username is not acceptable because it implies shared use by an organization. I would report the username to UAA as "Violation of the username policy as a username that implies shared use".

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Fuqudik

Answer: This is obviously an offensive username and should be reported to WP:UAA.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

ColesStaff

Answer: This username is ambiguous because it could refer to a single staff member at Coles, which is permitted, or it could imply shared use. I would leave {{subst:uw-coi-username}} and try to clarify with the user whether it is a role account. If it refers to an individual I would encourage them to change their name to avoid confusion, but if it is a role account I would report to WP:UAA.

You would wait until the editor start editing and see what is their intention before reporting to WP:UAA.. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

~~~~

Answer: This is a disruptive username. It makes it difficult to communicate with the user because typing the username without nowiki tags will result in a signature. It should be reported to UAA.

. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

172.295.64.27

Answer: This is a misleading username because it looks like an IP address. It should be reported to UAA.

, Same as above. This tye usernames is automatically disallowed nowaday, so you won't see them.

Bieberisgay

Answer: This is a disruptive username and should be reported to UAA. The username should also be redacted by admins because it constitutes a BLP violation.

.

SpicyMilkBoy, See Assignment 7 above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I've completed the assignment. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy,Good good. Next assignment is Progress test. Let me know if you are ready for it. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Thanks for the feedback. I'd like to move on to the next assignment. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Progress test[edit]

Congratulations, now have mastered the "basics" so we can move on. Please complete the following progress test, and I'll tell you what's next.

The following 2 scenarios each have 5 questions that are based on WP: VANDAL, WP:3RR, WP: REVERT, WP: BLOCK, WP: GAIV, WP: WARN, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, and WP:UN. Good Luck!

Scenario 1[edit]

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

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

Answer: This would be considered vandalism because the intent is to defame a person.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

Answer: WP:BLP - All statements about living persons, especially controversial or negative ones, must be backed up by a reliable source.

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

Answer: {{subst:uw-biog2}}/{{subst:uw-biog3}} or {{subst:uw-vand2}}/{{subst:uw-vand3}} - Starting with a level 2 or 3 warning is appropriate because this edit was obviously made in bad faith.

. It is {{Tlsubst|uw-biog} but it is also a false info so {{subst:uw-vand1}} or {{subst:uw-vand2}}would be more appropriate. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: No. According to WP:3RR, the 3RR rule does not apply when reverting obvious vandalism.

good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{IPvandal}} because the user is an IP.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Vandalism after final warning (assuming I gave them more warnings after they continued to vandalize).

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Scenario 2[edit]

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

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

Answer: This would be considered a good faith edit because it may be a test edit.

.Do check on how many edits the new account has made and the nature of the edit as well. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{subst:uw-test1}}

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: I would use Rollback-AGF to show that I am assuming good faith plus an explanatory edit summary ("test edit").

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Generally users are reported to AIV if they have vandalized past a level 4 (final) warning, but it may be appropriate to report them after a level 3 warning if all their edits are vandalism or the vandalism is extremely offensive.

.Report if and only if it is considered vandalized only account with extremely office edits. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes, if a registered user's edits are entirely vandalism or unconstructive they can be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account.

.Vandalism-only accounts usually be blocked indef. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{vandal}} as the user is registered.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: "Vandalism-only account"

good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Scenario 3[edit]

You see a new account called "LaptopsInc" which has created a new page called "Laptops Inc" (which only contains the words "Laptops Inc" and a few lines of text copied from the company's website). The user also added "www.laptopsinc.com" on the Laptop article. You research Laptops Inc on Google and find that is a small company.

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

Answer: Yes, because it is spam. I would use rollback-vandal or the blue rollback with the edit summary "Spam link".

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

Answer: {{subst:uw-spam1}}

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes. The following criteria would apply: CSD G11 - Unambiguous advertising or promotion. The user's name and spam edits show that the intent behind this article was promotion. CSD G12 - Unambiguous copyright violation. All of the content was copied from the company's website. Depending on the content of the article it might also be eligible for CSD A7 - No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)

good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes, I would use {{subst:uw-coi-username}} to indicate that their name suggests a conflict of interest.

and / or use {{subst:Db-spam-notice|PageName}}

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

Answer: Yes, I would report to UAA with the reason "Violation of the username policy as a promotional username."

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy, See Assignment 8 above. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I've completed the assignment. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy, Well-done!. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

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

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

Answer:

Rollback can be used for reverting vandalism or obviously nonconstructive edits. It can also be used on your own edits and in your own user space.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Answer: Rollback may NOT be used when

Rollback should not be used to revert changes that you disagree with or to edit war.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?

Answer: If you accidentally clicked the rollback button when you didn't want to revert the edit, you should revert yourself and explain what happened in the edit summary. If you accidentally rollbacked an edit when you meant to revert it, you can make a dummy edit with an edit summary explaining that the use of rollback was accidental.

. or use "undo" button and leave a edit summary. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

Generally, no - standard rollback does not give you the option of using an edit summary unless you manually edit the URL. However, other tools like Twinkle do allow you to leave one.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy, See assignment 9 above. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I've completed the assignment. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy, Good work. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Monitoring period[edit]

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

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

SpicyMilkBoy, Greeting. The next phase of this course is Assignment 10 - "monitoring period", see above. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy, You 7 day monitoring period has shown no major issues. See below you Final exam question. All the best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Final Exam[edit]

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

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (15%)[edit]

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

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

1. If this was their first warning, it would be considered good faith as it could be a test edit, so I would revert their edit and use {{uw-test1}}.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

2. If they had been warned before but continued to make these edits, the edits are less likely to be in good faith and I would use {{uw-test2}} or {{uw-vand2}}.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

3. Uw-articlesig is a single level warning, so if they did it again I would use {{uw-vand1}}.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

4. I would use {{uw-vand}} with increasing levels if they continue to do it.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

5. For the first time, I would revert the edit and warn them with {{uw-test1}} because it could be a test edit.

. Test edit usually would be just remove/add one/a few character/symbol as the editor would like to "try/test" if they could "actually make an edit in Wikipedia". A sentence of is deemed {{uw-NPOV}} if the article is about John Smith and if the article/content is nothing due with John Smith then it is considered a {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} even this is their first edit..~~~~ 6. If they kept doing it I would use <nowiki>{{uw-test2}} or {{uw-vand2}} with increasing warning levels if they continued to make these edits. If they vandalized past the final warning I would report them to AIV.

. Not {{subst:uw-test2}} but {{uw-vandalism2}}. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

7. Same as above, this could be a test edit so I would use {{uw-test1}}.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

8. I would use increasing levels of {{uw-test}}, and report them to AIV if they vandalized past the final warning.

It would considered {Tblsubst|uw-vandalism1}}. We dont usually increase test message and report to AIV..~~~~ ; 9, 10 & 11. A user removes sourced information from an article, with the summary 'this is wrong'. First time, and after that? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions? 9. First, I would check the source to see if the information is actually wrong. If it was, this would be a valid edit and no action would be needed. If the information was correct, I would give the user <nowiki>{{uw-delete1}} and write an edit summary indicating that the content is supported by the source, and that if the user thinks the source is wrong they should discuss it on the talk page.

. Very good. Check the source is important irregardless the edit is made by IP user or registered user or the status of their contribution history. You could also send a personal message to the editor indicating the info is supported by sourced in the editor talk page..~~~~ 10. If they continued to remove the content without giving a reason why in the edit summary, I would use increasing <nowiki>{{uw-delete}} warnings and report them to AIV if they continued past the final warning.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

11. If the user was disruptive, I would be less likely to assume good faith and I would simply revert the edit and give a warning. If the user had a history of good contributions, I might ask about their edits on their talk page first because I may have misunderstood what they were doing.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: It's generally okay to remove unsourced content, especially in a BLP. If the material that was removed sounded plausible I might try to find a citation for it and re-add it, but if I couldn't find a source then it wouldn't belong in the article. If the user removed a large amount of plausible content from the article I would revert and encourage them to discuss the issues on the talk page first.

. If this is the very first edit make by the user and a big chunk of unsourced info is removed without edit summary given, then give a {{subst:uw-delete1}} and send a personal message asking them why removed the info..~~~~ ; 13. An IP user removes a sourced content and stated "not relevant", what would you do? Answer: 13. If the content was obviously relevant, I would revert and warn the user with <nowiki>{{uw-delete1}}. If I wasn't sure whether or not the content was relevant, I would leave the edit alone and wait for someone more familiar with the subject to decide if it should be reverted. If the content that was removed was was obviously irrelevant then it's a good edit and no action should be taken.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Answer: Email emergency@wikimedia.org with a diff of the edit

Anytime an editor indicates to harm other (legal or personal threat (etc -I am going to kill you), report them.. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Answer: Email emergency@wikimedia.org with a diff of the edit

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Part 2 Part 2 (15%)[edit]

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

1. A user blanks Cheesecake

Answer: {{uw-delete1}}

- but {{uw-blank}} would be more appropriate. Delete would be a few sentences or a section is being removed/deleted. Blanking is the delete the whole article and this action is considered serious vandalism which would lead to a block. Some admin would blocked an editor for the 1 or 2nd blanking of the page made. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{uw-attempt2}} or 3 because the edits are bad faith

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{uw-vand1}}

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{uw-delete1}}

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

Answer: {{uw-test1}} (assuming it's the first time)

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-vand1}}

.{{uw-test1}} if first edit. {{uw-vandal1}}</nowki> if Tim is not in the content of the article. <nowiki>{{uw-NPOV}} if Tim is in the content of the article.. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

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

Answer: {{uw-defamatory1}}

. or {{uw-biog1}}. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{uw-delete4im}}

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Report to AIV for vandalism after final warning.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Because this is an ongoing behavioural issue I would report to WP:ANI.

. It is considered a harassment action here..~~~~ ; 12. A user adds [[:File:Example.jpg]] to [[Taoism]] Answer: <nowiki>{{uw-test1}}

. only if the edit is the first edit made by the editor. If not then place {{uw-image}}. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{uw-npa4im}} because the user is acting in bad faith

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

14. A user adds "Italic text to Sydney

Answer: {{uw-mos1}}

Good.. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{uw-vand2}} or 3 as this is in bad faith

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Part 3 (10%)[edit]

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

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

Answer: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

Answer: A7: No indication of importance

. or option (1) G2 as test page if the article is nothing do with Josh Marcus, (2) A1 as no context if the article has no other content and nothing could be found to on the internet about Josh Marcus for it could not determined who Josh Marcus is..~~~~ ; 3. Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home ! Answer: A1: No context. : {{tick}}. A7 is another option as no indication of importance people for no full name is provided and cant do a web search of such person..~~~~ ; 4. A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper. Answer: G3: Obvious hoax : {{tick}}. Cant find Smadoodle in the internet..~~~~ ; 5. Fuck Wiki! Answer: G3: Vandalism : {{tick}}.~~~~ '''What would you do in the following circumstance:''' ; 6. A user blanks a page they very recently created Answer: Check the edit history. If the user is the only major contributor to the page, they could be requesting speedy deletion. I would ask on their talk page if this is what they wanted and if they said so I would tag it with G7. : {{tick}}.~~~~ ; 7. After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank. Answer: I would ask the user why they removed the tag on their talk page as they may be confused about what's going on. : {{tick}}. If they want to delete the page they recreated then tag G7 or if they want to work on the article on draft page then move it to draft space.~.~~~~ ; 8 & 9. A user who is the creator of the page remove the "{{tl|afd}}" tag for the first time and times after that? Answer: 8. I would revert the edit and use <nowiki>{{uw-afd1}}

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

9. Continue to revert and use increasing warning levels, report to AIV if they continue after the final warning

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Tag with G13

. If the draft content and subject is promising then make a dummy edit and place "postponing G13" on the edit summary. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Part 4 (10%)[edit]

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

1. TheMainStreetBand

Answer: This username implies shared use, so it should be reported to UAA.

.If the edits are clearly promoting a band called "The Main Street Band" then report to UAA. If not then AGF and send a message to editor asking them to change the username. If communication has reach no avail then report to WP:UAA for WP:ORGNAME - Promotional names. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

2. Poopbubbles

Answer: The username is immature and possibly indicative of vandalism or trolling, but it's not offensive enough to report to UAA if it is a good faith editor. I would look at the user's contributions and report to UAA/AIV if they were a vandalism only account, but if their edits were constructive I would ignore it. I could open a discussion at WP:RFCN if I really had a problem with the username.

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Brian's Bot

Answer: Check the user page to see if it's an authorized bot. If not, it is either a misleading username or an unauthorized bot so it should be reported to UAA.

Checking the user page is a good step. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

Answer: This is a disruptive username because it is confusing and difficult to type, so it should be reported to UAA.

. "confusing and difficult to type" is not an user name violation. Do no action unless the editor make vandalism edits or egregious descriptive edits then I will report it to WP:UAA.

5. Bobsysop

Answer: This username is misleading because it implies the user is a sysop, so it should be reported to UAA.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

6. 12, 23 June 2012

Answer: This is a disruptive username because it is confusing when trying to read the user's signature, so it should be reported to UAA.

. It looks like an indication of "time". CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

7. PMiller

Answer: This username is fine unless the user is editing articles about "P. Miller". If that was the case, I would leave a COI template on the user's page.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

8. OfficialJustinBieber

Answer: I would report to UAA as a misleading username as the user is impersonating Justin Bieber.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

9. The Dark Lord of Wiki

Answer: Not a username violation, but could possibly indicate vandalism or trolling. I would keep an eye on the user's contributions. If they are a good faith user, there is no issue with this username.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

10. I love you

Answer: Not a username violation, but again, might be a vandal or troll so I would check the user's contributions.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Part 5 (10%)[edit]

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

Answer:

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

Answer: According to WP:3RR, reverting obvious vandalism is an exception to the 3RR rule. However, you could violate the 3RR rule if you mistakenly consider edits to be vandalism when they are not, so you should only revert repeatedly in cases of blatant vandalism. If the edits are potentially valid you should discuss the changes on the talk page first.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: They should be reported to WP:AIV as a vandalism only account.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

Answer: These cases should be reported to WP:ANI with an in-depth description of the issues, and involved parties should be notified on their talk pages.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: They should be reported to WP:UAA with the appropriate reason (e.g. promotional, implies shared use, offensive).

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: If the account making the personal attacks is vandalism only it should be reported to WP:AIV. If it is not, you should open a case about the user's behaviour at WP:ANI.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Edit warring should be reported to WP:ANEW with diffs of the user's reverts, the edit warring warning on their talk page, and any attempts to discuss the changes on the article talk page. Users involved in the report should be notified on their talk pages.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: These should be reported to WP:BLPN, but only if they are ambiguous. Obvious BLP vandalism should be reported to AIV.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Sock puppets should be reported to WP:SPI. Reports should include the suspected sockmaster and sock puppet(s) plus diffs showing the suspicious behaviour.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: This should be reported to WP:RFPP with the reason for protection (e.g. persistent vandalism, addition of unsourced content) and the desired protection level and duration.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: WP:ANEW

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Answer: 1. Diff: [35] Warning: [36]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

2. Diff: [37] Warning: [38]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (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. Good faith edit: [39] - this was a good addition but the person was already in the article. Welcomed user: [40]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

4. Self-revert edit: [41] Warned user: [42]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

5. Test edit: [43] Warned user: [44]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: 6. AIV: [45] [46]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

7. 3RR: I'll be honest, I've been looking for edit warring for several weeks now, and I still haven't seen a case where a 3RR report was necessary. However, I'll show you an example where I warned a user for edit warring, and I will demonstrate how I would have made a 3RR report if it was appropriate.

Page: Islam and violence

User being reported: Special:Contributions/109.93.186.50

Diffs of user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_violence&oldid=906930163

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_violence&oldid=906934963

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_violence&oldid=906963378

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_violence&oldid=906997452

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_violence&oldid=907000038

Diff of edit warring warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

I didn't report this user to 3RR because they stopped edit warring and began using the talk page instead after being warned by an admin.

. OK you have demonstrated you understand about 3RR/edti warring. Do note besides warn the involved editors to avoid edit warring, do open a discussion thread on the article talk page and invite (remember to ping them) the involved editors to discussion the issue. I would usually leave talkback message on their talk page as well. Once you have done that and the edit warring continues, you would report them to ANEW and do remember to inform them they have been reported on their talk page.

See example here for edit warring on Israel Adesanya between OmoYoruba45 and Rsfinlayson. OmoYoruba45 was warned and blocked - see here.

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

Answer: [49]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

[50]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

[51]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

[52]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Page:[53] Diff:[54]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Page:[55] Diff:[56]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Page:[57] Diff:[58]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Page:[59] Diff:[60]

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
12 & 13. Correctly report two username as a breach of policy.

Answer: 12. [61] [62]

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

Answer: 14. Edit warring is prohibited because it is not constructive: it causes users to waste time on petty disputes rather than improving the article. If there is a dispute over article content, editors should work together to reach a consensus; reverting each other does not help to resolve any of the issues. Moreover, edit warring can cause resentment and incivility between editors, and it is disruptive to other users who are watching or editing the page.

15. The main cause of edit warring is refusing to discuss changes and reach a consensus. This may occur because an editor strongly feels that their changes are correct and other views are not worthy of discussion. It could also occur if users are trying to discuss the changes through edit summaries rather than doing so properly on the talk page. Finally, the editors might not be aware of WP:BRD or they could be engaging in disruptive behaviour intentionally.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: BLP vandalism is a serious concern because it can affect the subject's personal life and career. In some cases it also has legal implications as it can violate laws on libel and slander. For this reason it is imperative to revert all vandalism on BLPs and request revision deletion if indicated. The same applies to edits that are not obvious vandalism but are still problematic, such as controversial claims that are unsourced or cited to unreliable sources, use of POV language, or information that may violate the subject's privacy.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: 17. Trolling should be ignored and reverted per WP:DENY. If it is persistent it should be reported so that the user can be blocked, either to WP:AIV if it is a vandalism only account or WP:ANI if it is an established user.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

18. Trolls should not be engaged with because their goal is to provoke a reaction and cause drama. The best way to deal with trolling is to ignore and revert it, because the user will get bored if there is no payoff to the trolling.

. Note: we the vandal fighters often receive offensive messages from editors who we have placed warnings on their talk page. Sometimes the message is down right disgusting. Remember to always keep a cool head. If you find you emotion is affected by the messages, then take a break - get yourself a copy and or go out for a run. If editor asked a question of why the revert/message was placed, do reply and answer in a mechanical manner. Do not involved in 3RR if they place disruptive edit and not vandalism edit, I have witnessed some long term regular vandal fighters accidentally revert more than 3 times and were blocked and some their user right were taken away. They felt so frustrated and angry and retired for good. Sad cases. - see User talk:Jim1138 and here. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Semi-protection prevents IPs and non-autoconfirmed users from editing a page, while full protection prevents anyone except admins from editing. Semi-protection is relatively common and it is usually applied to articles that receive large amounts of unconstructive editing from new users, either because the articles are on a popular/controversial subject or they are targeted by a persistent vandal. Semi-protection may be applied indefinitely if the problems are persistent. Full protection is rarely applied and it is usually done in response to edit warring and content disputes. It is always temporary and it is lifted once the dispute is resolved.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Personal attacks create animosity between editors and harm the collaborative environment of Wikipedia. Ideally, editors should work together to improve articles and treat each others' opinions with respect. When users turn to personal attacks, this can create resentment and rivalries that prevent effective collaboration.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I just have a question before I move on to the final part of the exam. You've asked me to report two instances of edit warring, but I don't normally edit in controversial areas so I don't see edit warring very much. In my time on Wikipedia, I've only seen one instance of it while patrolling recent changes and the user stopped after being warned. So I'm not sure if I'll be able to complete that part of the assignment. Do you have any advice? Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy Greetings. Some edit warring might not in controversial areas/specific articles. Some editor just want to point a point or disagree with other editors and do not want to engage in civil discussion in the talk page. Secondly, Edit warring is part of CVUA program topics. You have already edited more than 1k mainspace article. Get STiki downloaded and you would able to view more new edits in a row better. Do note STiki do not have all the "messages" as per Twinkle or Huggle. If you see any edits you would like to revert and find no suitable message to send to editors talk page, then pls use Twinkle or place subst them / or send personal messages. I use Huggle, subst manually and Twinkle of whatever I see fix. (Note sometime Huggle does not register the message in the editor's talk page, so always check before move to next edit - just a click in Huggle to view that). Once you have completed the final exam, then you would apply the user right to use Huggle as it is a much better tool as compared to the rest. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Thanks for the tip, I will download STiki and try it out. Can't use it currently as I'm at work but I'll install it on my home computer. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy Here is one examples of editing warring due to content dispute - Israel Adesanya's history page btw OmoYoruba45 and Rsfinlayson from May30/May31 for your perusal. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Thanks, that's very helpful. BTW, it may take a few days for me to finish the exam because I'm busy with work right now. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy Welcome and no worries. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy Hi, havent seen you work on the final exam for about 2 weeks. Is everything ok? do you have any questions that certain questions which you are stuck with? Pls voice. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I've just been busy with other things. I should be able to work on it more this week :) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy Ok and thanks for the reply. Do let me know if you need assistance. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I've completed the assignment. I still had trouble finding users to report to ANEW, but I included an example ANEW report in my assignment so you can see that I know how to do it. I hope that's ok, if not I can keep looking for edit warring to report. Thanks again for all your help. I've learned so much from this course. :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy OK, I will review it this weekend. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)05:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Final score[edit]

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage
1	15	13	15%	13%
2	15	14	15%	14%
3	10	10	10%	10%
4	10	19	10%	9%
5	10	10	10%	10%
6	20	19.5	40%	39%
TOTAL	80	75.5	100	95%

Completion[edit]

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

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

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.

Hi SpicyMilkBoy It's been a pleasure to work with you over the past month. I hope you gained something from this CVUA program. You could go to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback to request your rollback user right and do inform you have graduated from CVUA program. once it is approved you can download WP:Huggle as this is a great vandalism tool to use. I use both Twickle and Huggle but they do not have all the warning templates install in the system. So when require, manually subst them. to Do drop by my talk page you have any questions as I am here to help. Best of luck, and thank you so much for your willingness to help Wikipedia in this role. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I really enjoyed going through this program and I learned so much. Thanks again SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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