User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Eternal Shadow

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/Eternal Shadow.

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.

Already had Twinkle enabled

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: A good faith edit is an edit where the editor had the intent to improve the page, but did not improve the page (often due to a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy). A vandalism edit is an intentional edit that has the goal of being disruptive, often blanking sections or even the entire page, or putting nonsense (spam) into a page.

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) [1]

. It is a unsourced edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(2) [2]

. It is a unsourced edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(3) [3]

. It is a unsourced edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(4) [4] (Improper use of bold)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

(5) [5] (was the editors first edit so I assume good faith.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

Answer:

(1) [6]

. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(2) [7]

. This is the example of talking on the article. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(3) [8]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

RedRiver660 Good day. Any questions 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) 02:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Finished with assignment 1 RedRiver660 (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

RedRiver660 See comments above. You provided 3 unsourced good faith edits. Kindly provide 2 more (4) & (5) good faith edits on other situation, such as incorrect of WP:MOS or incorrect formatting of table or other type of good faith edits. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I added 2 more good faith edits, one being improper use of bold, another being a messy edit that looked like a test. RedRiver660 (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

RedRiver660 Reviewed. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I am ready to move on to the next assignment. Do note that I live in the pacific time zone, so my responses will come at very odd times. RedRiver660 (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

RedRiver660. No worries of the time zone. Just ping me when you have done with the assignment or raise any questions you have. I am here to help. best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

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

Please answer the following questions

(1) Why do we warn users?

Answer: We warn users to give them a notice that they are doing something wrong. (Sometimes users may not know that their edit(s) are unconstructive.)

:Y. The purpose is to "educate" the editors on constructive editing, especially those who are new to Wikipedia and to "deter" them of such actions with stronger warnings leads up to a block. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: 4im is for mass vandalism (either in a very short time span or on lots of pages.) Lower warnings can be used for more subtle forms of vandalism.

. 4im is only for widespread and particularly egregious vandalism and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes you should because if the template changes, then without the substitution it will still display the old version. You substitute by putting the subst before the uw in the template.

.

So it would be like this: Hello, I'm RedRiver660. 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.

Instead of this: Hello, I'm RedRiver660. 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.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Report them to AIV and an administrator will most likely block them.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer i: Hello, I'm RedRiver660. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

RedRiver660 See assignment 2 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I answered the questions for assignment 2. Let me know if there is anything that I can improve on. RedRiver660 (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

RedRiver660 Reviewed. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Tools

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

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

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

Twinkle

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

User creation log

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

Rollback

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

STiki

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

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	Unsourced	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
1	Test edit	[9]	Was the IP’s first edit (it looked a bit like vandalism)	Y - this was the third edit by IP editor - see here. However, I could not tell if it was the same editor or since the IP address was range block before. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
2	Test edit	[10]	Looks like a test	Y. Even thought this was the first edit by user; however, the editor's "intention" was not really "trying" to see if their can actually make an edit in Wikipedia.05:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
3	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[11]	[12] I could tell it was a vandalism only account. Blocked indefinitely 3 minutes later.	Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
4	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[13]	[14] Reported to AIV. ~~As of writing this, the user hasn’t gotten blocked yet.~~ Blocked indefinitely.	Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
5	WP:NPOV	[15]	Gave him {{subst:uw-npov1}}	Y it would be also a vandalism edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
6	WP:NPOV	[16]	Gave him {{subst:uw-npov1}}	Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
7	WP:SPAM	[17]	blatant spam; warned	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
8	Talking on the article	[18]	Warned him.	N This was the first edit - see here and it was a test edit. Example of talking on the article would be "hi, my school has a party this Saturday, come and join us" or "John just told me he like our school teacher, omg, this is just crazy, come and talk to me on my talk page an tell me what you think" and etc. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
9	Unsourced	[19]	Gave him {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}	Y. Do note editor also removed "Personal life" section which is fine since it was unsourced. However the last name added was unsourced edit by the editor. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
10	Your choice	[20]	Warned him for vandalism.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
11	Your choice	[21]	Warned him for vandalism.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
12	Your choice	[22]	Don't know what this was all about but I don't think it's constructive.	Y. You place vandal1 on the editor talk page so you thought it was a vandalism edit and it was. When you are not sure the edit made is a vandalism, then first thing you do is to check the source in the article. I checked but is was a dead link - see here-1. I search "Ankit Singh Patyal Ikka Singh" on Google, see here-2 and confirmed the aka name of the subject. If you are not sure and have no way to find out the info (no source in the page and cant find into on the internet), then leave the edit alone and wait for editors who are familiar with the subject to work on the edit/page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
13	Your choice	[23]	Blatant vandalism. Warned.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
14	Your choice	[24]	Warned him for vandalism.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
15	Your choice	[25]	Warned. Edit conflict with Serols caused double warn.	Y. Serols is one of the most experience and proliferate counter vandalism editor in English Wikipedia. I have worked with Serols in countless occasions working in counter vandalism in Huggle in the past. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
16	Test edit	[26]	obviously a test	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
17	Test edit	[27]	self revert ~ notified with {{subst:uw-selfrevert}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
18	Talking in the article	[28]	Finally I actually didn’t crash when I was trying to revert. Warned.	Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

RedRiver660 Good day. If Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. Pls note that STiki is not working at the moment. I use both Twinkle and Huggle (a better tool and a preference which is a user right tool ) and you can apply at the when you have graduated from the program. Cheers. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I have finished the assignment. Let me know if there is anything I can improve on. Red River 660 talk 16:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

RedRiver660 Greetings. See the comments above and pls ping when you have finished the additional 3 questions (16-18). Pls see the "Notes" section below. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Please do note that I changed my name to Eternal Shadow. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow Thank you for informing. I have changed this subpge name - pls bookmark in your computer. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I have finished the additional questions. Sorry it took so long. Was pretty busy. Also here’s an activity timeframe in case I’m not finished by mid August. Eternal Shadow Talk 17:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

dates	activity level
July 7 (today) - August 13	Very active. Online daily doing CVU, CSD, AfD, and writing a couple articles a week.
August 13 - October 31	Extremly chaotic. May be on only a few times a week, likely not doing much deletion and a little CVUA.
November 1 - Mid January 2021	Pretty active, but not quite 100%. Hopefully will finish around this timeframe.
February 1 2021 - May 31 2021	Don’t even bother. May be entire weeks of inactivity. When I’m actually on CVUA is probably going to be second fiddle.

That is all for the next year, it may differ a little bit but keep in mind Real life/ education > Wikipedia.

Eternal Shadow Reviewed. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Notes

(1) Test edit means "the editor trying to make an edit to make sure they could actually make an edit in Wikipedia. However, since this is the editor first edit, we could place test edit message to educate and lead the editor to their sandbox to practice their edits. Sometimes an editor makes a test edit, say remove or adding an alphabet to a word in the page, or putting "hi/hello" on the page on their first edit and then revert their own edit on their second edit - see example for self revert test edit - here user self revert their edit after testing on the first edit.

(2) If an editor remove unsouced content, leave it and do nothing as content should support by source(s).

(3) Even thought vandalism message and tool in English Wikipedia is considered a "flexible system" where we would place the level as we see vandal fighters see fix, for vandal that is not that serious and not prolific, we still use level 1 first and increase the level on subsequent vandal edit of the same nature. Some admin will not block editors if warning messages are not enough.

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 Eternal Shadow, Posted Assignment 4 above. No exercises for this assignment but only some reading material. Once you have done reading, pls let me know so I would post Assignment 5 for you. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, read assignment 4, was pretty simple. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users

Harassment and trolling

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

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Answer: Vandals and trolls often do what the do (disrupting) for attention - they like to provoke people and defy authority, especially so on the internet where they are anonymous and rarely face consequences. In addition, by reacting strongly to vandalism, we make it seem more important than what it is. If we argue with trolls, we’re just giving what they want - and that might encourage them to continue. By using WP:RBI and WP:DENY - they likely won’t get the desired effect and may get bored.

. 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. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Usually, off my own experience, good faith editors will just ask why I reverted their edit, sometimes with a justification for why they think it was correct. Example: (“I removed an inaccurate paragraph”). There’s lot of different types of trolling - insults, accusations, some hounding even, but it seems most trolls don’t care why I reverted them - they just want to get a reaction.

. 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. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Emergencies

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

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

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

Answer: I should contact the WMF’s emergency email at emergency@wikimedia.org. The email should include a link to the page or a diff of the threatening edit. Additionally, I should contact a sysop for Revdel or Oversight and potential blocking using a private method such as IRC or Email (and NOT something public such as Wp:ANI.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: I would still report it - better to error on the cautious side and pass it on to someone who is experienced with emergencies. I would make a comment about my suspicions when contacting the WMF and a sysop, but I will leave the final decision to them. "Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sock pupperty

Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and answer the question below

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

Answer: There are many forms of sock puppetry but the main forms are vote stacking (often when a newbie panics when their page gets AfDed) or getting around rules or sanctions (e.g. block evasion) or edit warring socks. Suspected socks should be reported to WP:SPI.

Here is an example: (sorta guilty but admitted it) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GiacomoValenti/Archive

.

Sock puppetry takes various forms, depending on the sockpuppeteer :

IP-edit : Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address (very likely to be caught attempting it though).
New Account : Creating new accounts (to avoid detection or sanctions).
Piggybanking : Using another person's account (to save one's own account from being caught or to make a stand).
Sleepers : Reviving old unused accounts (to present them as different users)
Meatpuppetry : Creating accounts for friends or colleagues by persuading them (to use them to support one side of a dispute).

When report to SPI, you need to have good hist diff of evidents and reasons to do so. See example see here 1 - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SwedenAviator/Archive here 2 - here 3. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eternal Shadow, see Assignment 5 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eternal Shadow, Good day. Havent seen you working on the assignment. Do you have any issues which need some assistance? Pls let me know or you just need to short break due to personal things you need to take care of. Kindly let me know. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, It’s going alright but there is a huge mess at AfC (I recently became a reviewer there) and I am getting pings every time I do something else (like write an article or do CVUA.) I literally got 4 pings overnight so I will try to get this assignment done as soon as possible. Eternal Shadow Talk 14:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eternal Shadow, I am one the trainers for NPPSCHOOL and CVUA and I am also one of the reviewer for NPP and AfC. NPP, AfC and counter vandalism are always needs help from editors and help needed is never ending. Take your time to review the page correctly and dont hurry. You have only few more assignments left in this program, let's get it done. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I finished this assignment now (hopefully I have less delays in late July and early August). Eternal Shadow Talk 16:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eternal Shadow, See comments above. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move to next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I'm ready to move onto the next assignment now. Eternal Shadow Talk 20:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion

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

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

1. In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected? Answer: Semi-protection should be used for articles which are receiving significant vandalism from new/unregistered users or are having problems with sock puppetry. It will stop vandalism only accounts because few have enough patience to do 4 days and 10 edits JUST to vandalize.

. Semi-protection applies to pages that constantly attract a large amount of vandalism. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

2. In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected? Answer: A page should be pending changes protected as an alternative to semi-protection; The key is low volumn but persistent over time. If a page is edited by new and unregistered users a lot, it shouldn’t be pending changes protected, as that would put a burden on pending changes reviewers.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

3. In what circumstances should a page be fully protected? Answer: This is extremely restrictive, so this should be used rarely, only in major edit wars between high rank users that are Extensively confirmed and on high use templates, example: Template:Citation needed.

. 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) 09:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

4. In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")? Answer:A page should be salted if it is repeatedly recreated after deletion without improving the issues that got it deleted. An example is that someone creates a promotional autobiography that gets repeatedly G11ed and recreated.

.The creation of a page is "Salted" when editor(s) keep creating the same article with similar content when it hs already been deleted, maybe even a few times where by the subject is not notable. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

5. In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected? Answer: Talk pages should only be protected in the case of severe vandalism, as they are essential for discussion.

{{semi tick}}. An "Article Talk" page is rarely protected except in cases of extreme vandalism. A "User Talk" pages are most often protected when they experience vandalism or abuse, usually from trolls. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:23, 22 August 2020 (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: [29] This page was a ticking timebomb waiting to be vandalized. It gets vandalized several times a week. Eternal Shadow Talk 23:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: [30] Triggered soccer fans mass vandalizing page.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

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

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: G11 (Promo) [31]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: G12 (Copyvio) [32]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: G13 (Abandoned AFC draft) [33]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Answer iv: G13 (Abandoned AFC draft) [34]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow, See Assignment 6 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I’m going to request Pending Changes Reviewer permission. I feel ready to take the next step. Eternal Shadow Talk 03:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I am a pending changes reviewer now. Eternal Shadow Talk 18:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow, I saw in your talk page. Congrats. Let me know when you have finished the assignment. Stay safe and thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, Finished the assignment. Eternal Shadow Talk 22:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow. Good work. See review about and the "Notes" Section below. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Notes

G11 (promo) - What constitute a G11? At times it is hard to define. Although if a article is blantly promote or adverstise about the subject then it is a G11. Sometimes, the it is a little subtle and that would be a judgement call. As a rule of thumb, if article about an entertainers (actor/singer/DJ/artist and etc) in dept of how hard they work, how motivated they are, using all the puffery/flowery languagues and especially the subject does not meet notability guidelines. For a corporation, we would see they list down all they product/services, their directors/key person in the company, they mission, their client, they are the influencer in their industrial, all the words/phrased to enhance/market the company and no substantial info that is supported by independent reliable sources. If you look at the this version of Zapp Scooters which you tagged G11, I have to agree with the editor who removed the tag that it is not a G11 and unsourced info can be removed.

G12 (copyvio) -

Copyright violation addresses the use of original expression without permission of the holder which is a violation of laws even the credit is given to the source. For articles, the Copyright Law gives the copyright protection to the “original works of authorship fixed in in a tangible medium of expression” in the newspaper, magazine and freelance article at the moment of their creation, for the life of the creator plus 70 years after, and 95 years for corporation publication or 120 years from date of creation, whichever is shorter.

A “fact” is not considered an original work of authorship; but how the ways facts are recorded where the style of the writing, choice and/or arrangement of words are copyrightable. An infringement of copyright is committed when a person uses the “exact words /almost exact words in a consecutive manner” of the author/holder. To note, as a guideline, a few words copies from the original works and an idea of expression such as "weather the storm", 'crossing the Rubicon" "as dead as a doornail" and etc. proper nouns, document/event/treaty/person/title/ names are generally acceptable and so is a direct quote of speech. However, any longer phrases which would be expression in a number of ways are copyright protected. To use one of two short sentences on a large article generally is ok but it will considered infringement if the edit entry is consists of big percentage of the original work and yet for some (such as newspaper/press/journalism that takes their work very seriously - anything more than 4 exact consecutively words would considered copyvio). To avoid copyright infringement, one needs uses his/her own words to convey the source’s information. Paraphrasing could minimise the the copyright violation; however, "threshold" ultimately, court judgement would determined the if copyright violation has been made.

Copyvio for texts or images shared the same notion that it is not a copyvio if the verbatim texts or images are taken from free licence and Public domain sites/specific page/image. I have indicated to you on Assignement 3 - section 3.3 - Q5, Q6, Q7 that always check the "original source" even if in WikiCommon the editor who upload the image claim taken from a PD site, we need to check the link provided and if the site indicate the image taken from another source, then we check the source. For texts, we need to check the sites if it is a PD, sometimes the disclaimer of PD is not on the page, but on the home page or "about" page or FAQ page. Secondly, for older article (no in NPP Feed), any copyvio texts found, we will revdel it as it is almost always it is not the first versions. If a small amount of verbatim texts found in NPP Feed articles, we would revdel them; but large amount of verbatim texts we will tag G12.

Lastly, here are a few examples where the German car maker Audi was sued for copyright breach.

1. Audi infringed copyright violation over Eminem’s song “Lose Yourself” in their commercial advertising. [35]

2. Audi was fined US $ 965,000 over copyright infringement for using 10 words from Brian Andreas’s story of “Angel of Mercy” - [36]

I think I just had a wake-up call, and it was disguised as a car, and it was screaming at me not to get too comfortable and fall asleep and miss my life. (Audi commercial) Some people don’t know that there are angels whose only job is to make sure you don’t get too comfortable & fall asleep & miss your life.(Brian Andreas’ print)

Hope the above help. Note the above doest not substitute the Wikipedia links I provided above. Please make sure you read the reading material as well. Thanks.

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: Probably ok, but if they were primarily editing Dwayne Johnson, it could be a misleading username (possible impersonation). If they had edit summaries like “I’m Dwayne Johnson and this is completely wrong”, I would suggest they change their username to avoid confusion.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

LMedicalCentre

Answer: Promotional username that implies shared use. If they were making promotional edits, inserting inappropriate external links to their website, I’d report to UAA. Other than that I’d give them {{subst:Uw-coi-username}}.

. "Violation of the username policy as a username that implies shared use" Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Fuqudik

Answer: Clearly offensive. Report to UAA on sight.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

ColesStaff

Answer: I would follow the procedure above at LMedicalCentre and evaluate their editing depending on being promotional.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

~~~~

Answer: Same as below. Disruptive as someone wouldn’t create it without knowing the potential disruption it could cause.

. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

172.295.64.27

Answer: Misleading username suggesting user is an IP address. I’d report to UAA.

. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Bieberisgay

Answer: Inappropriate, report to UAA on sight.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow, See Assignment 7 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, finished Assignment 7. Eternal Shadow Talk 23:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow, See review above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:58, 26 August 2020 (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: Vandalism, leaning on defamation.

. The editor is adding defamation information to a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons article. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

Answer: WP:BLP, WP:V, and leaning on WP:PROVEIT.

. And WP:VAND. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{subst:uw-vand2}} because it is hard to assume good faith in this situation because inserting “(Celebrity) is gay” is common vandalism edits.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 6 October 2020 (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: Nope. 3RR states there is an exemption for Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{IPvandal}} as the editor is unregistered.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: After the 4th warning I’d report it as something like "vandalism after final warning - repeated vandalism on Justin Bieber".

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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: I would lean on AGFing and considering it a test.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{uw-test1}} should do.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Rollback-AGF, with a edits summary of Reverting test edit

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 6 October 2020 (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: Depends. If it’s a clear WP:VOA, then yes, but otherwise wait until 4th warning then AIV.

. We could but seldom report editor with only 3 warnings; however, if their edits are WP:VOA and violate serious offensive then we could report them and it will depend the decision of the admin if a block is warrant. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes as a VOA.

. Cassiopeia^(talk)

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

Answer: {{vandal}}.

. Cassiopeia^(talk)

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

Answer: "Vandalism-only account, vandalized (insert page) after final warning"

. Cassiopeia^(talk)

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: Revert with normal rollback option and explain it as a inappropriate external link.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

Answer: {{uw-spam1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 6 October 2020 (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, if the text is from the website, G12 should do, if it’s seriously promotional, G11, and if in mainspace possibly A7 as well.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 6 October 2020 (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, and I would use {{uw-coi-username}}.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: If they ignore the warning and continue promotional editing, yes. Promotional username would be the violation and it also implies shared use.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow, See Assignment 8 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, finished. Eternal Shadow Talk 18:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow, Reviewed. See above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 6 October 2020 (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 : In cases of obvious or blatant vandalism, your own edits (in case you error obviously), or general widespread disruptive editing. Generally, any time when a edit summary is not necessary (though you might need to justify it if asked.)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Answer - May not be used: Basically anytime a edit summary is needed (particularly important are good faith edits due to WP:AGF) you could use a tool with an edit summary.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?

Answer: You should undo the edit immediately (preferably using a tool with an edit summary e.g. twinkle)

. Leave an explanation in the edit summary and make a courtesy edit on the user talk page of the error and rectification. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: No. use another method such as undo or the twinkle “roleback” function.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow, See assignment 9 above. This is your last assignment and follow by a 7 day monitoring period and then final exam. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow, Hi haven't seen you working on your last assignment for 2 months and I hope everthing is well with you. Pls let me know if you need any help on the assignment above. Happy new year. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, My apologies for my inactivity. Everything is well with me, although I haven’t had as much time to edit (real life still comes first). Hopefully I will have more time in 2021 (I will do my best). Stay safe. Eternal Shadow Talk 03:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow, Welcome back, understand personal life priority comes first as it should. See above comments. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Monitoring period

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

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

Eternal Shadow, See Assignment 10 - "monitoring period" above. Pls make about 30 counter vandalism edits so I may check and if you make hundred of them, then I would not able 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) 08:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow Hi, Pls do at least another 25 counter vandalism edits for for this assignment. Ping when you have done. Thank you.11:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow Pls ping if you have done the above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I’ve done the above. Eternal Shadow Talk 18:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow }You 7 day monitoring period has shown no major issues. See below you Final exam questions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Notes

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

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: Revert and treat like a test edit (especially if the editor/ IP that did it was new). Leave Template:uw-test1. Eternal Shadow Talk 22:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer 2: Revert, treat like it may be vandalism. Leave higher and higher level warnings until you need to take it to WP:AIV. Eternal Shadow Talk 22:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 3: Give them vandalism warning Template:uw-vand1. Eternal Shadow Talk 22:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer 4: Would be considered vandalism after that point. Give Template:uw-vand2, then Template:uw-vand3 then Template:uw-vand4 then report to WP:AIV. Eternal Shadow Talk 22:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 5: If it has to do with John Smith, then I would give them Template:uw-npov1. If it doesn’t, I would give Template:uw-vand1. Eternal Shadow Talk 01:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer 6: Escalating uw-vand warnings till I report to WP:AIV. Eternal Shadow Talk 01:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: Likely a test. Give them Template:uw-test1. Eternal Shadow Talk 01:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer 8: Give more test warnings and eventually report to WP:AIV. Eternal Shadow Talk 01:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 9: First check the sources reliability and the content type, then if it is valid give then Template:uw-delete1. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer 10: escalating uwdelete warnings, then WP:AIV. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer 11: I would give them a query on their talk page and discuss it with them. It may be possible they have a WP:COI or be biased. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 12: I’m not sure if I would actually revert that. If it’s in a BLP then I wouldn’t. I would check contributions to make sure and move on. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 13: First check the source and content then if it’s valid give them Template:uw-delete1. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 14:

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

Answer 15:

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:

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

Answer 2:

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

Answer 3:

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

Answer 4:

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

Answer 5:

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

Answer 6:

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

Answer 7:

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

Answer 8:

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

Answer 9:

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

Answer 10:

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:

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

Answer 12:

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:

14. A user adds "Italic text to Sydney

Answer 14:

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

Answer 15:

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
Example	Unsourced	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} plus explanation/justification/link to guidelines
16	Test edit	diff	Your comment
17	Test edit	diff	Your comment
18	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	diff	Your comment
19	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	diff	Your comment
20	WP:NPOV	diff	Your comment
21	WP:Fringe theories	diff	Your comment
22	WP:SPAM	diff	Your comment
23	Talking on the article	diff	Your comment
24	Unsourced	diff	Your comment
25	Your choice	diff	Your comment
26	Your choice	diff	Your comment
27	Your choice	diff	Your comment
28	Your choice	diff	Your comment
29	Your choice	diff	Your comment
30	Your choice	diff	Your comment

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:

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

Answer 2:

3. Joe goes to England and comes home !

Answer 3:

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

Answer 4:

5. Fuck Wiki!

Answer 5:

What would you do in the following circumstance:

6. A user blanks a page they very recently created

Answer 6:

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

Answer 7:

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:

Answer 9:

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

Answer 10:

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:

2. Poopbubbles

Answer 2:

3. Brian's Bot

Answer 3:

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

Answer 4:

5. Bobsysop

Answer 5:

6. 12, 23 June 2012

Answer 6:

7. PMiller

Answer 7:

8. OfficialJustinBieber

Answer 8:

9. The Dark Lord of Wiki

Answer 9:

10. I love you

Answer 10: # Like the one above, leave it.

Part 5 (10%)

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

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

Answer 1:

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

Answer 2:

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

Answer 3:

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

Answer 4:

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

Answer 5:

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

Answer 6:

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

Answer 7:

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

Answer 8:

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

Answer 9:

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

Answer 10:

Part 6 - Theory in practice (40%)

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

Answer 1:

Answer 2:

Answer 3:

Answer 4:

Answer 5:

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

Answer 6:

Answer 7:

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

Answer 8:

Answer 9:

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

Answer 10 promotion:

Answer 11 copyvio violation:

Answer 12 copyvio violatio:

Answer 13 Your choice:

Answer 14 Your choice:

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

Answer 15:

Answer 16:

Answer 17:

Answer 18:

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

Answer 19:

Answer 20:

Answer 21:

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

Answer 21:

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

Answer 22:

Answer 23:

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

Answer 24:

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

Answer 25:

Eternal Shadow See Final exam above. Do provide explanation/justification/link to guidelines and hist diffs where is necessary. All the best! Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)