User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/PraiseVivec

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/PraiseVivec.

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 enabled Twinkle yesterday and it already proved itself useful.PraiseVivec (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism

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

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

Answer:

A good faith edit is an edit that contravenes Wikipedia's rules and guidelines or that is simply unhelpful to the goal of improving Wikipedia, which was made by an editor who believed they were improving the article in question. Inexperience, ignorance or accident is most likely the reason behind these edits, rather than malice or desire to disrupt.

Vandalism refers to edits made with a purposes other than improving Wikipedia in mind. This includes disrupting pages by removing legitimate information, deliberately adding false or non-encyclopedic information, or more generally using any of Wikipedia's editing tools for malicious purposes.

In some instances, edits that would initially be considered good faith edits are to be treated as vandalism if the editor insists on making them again and again, even after being warned. This applies to edits such as as adding copyrighted media to a page, spamming external links or repeatedly violating consensus.  

It is entirely possible that some good faith edits are more damaging than some attempts at vandalism, but they should be judged by the intent of the editor, rather than how much damage was done to a page. Assuming good faith is a central precept in approaching such edits and the default presumption should be that an edit was made in an attempt to improve the Wikipedia project, rather than hurt it, unless obvious evidence to the contrary exists. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Y The key here is intention. As long as a user intends to help Wikipedia, but the edits are might be disruptive, they are still considered a "good faith" editor and should be dealt with differently from a vandal. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia. Just because an edit adds incorrect or unsourced information does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal; they key is their intention. Looking into the editors' contribution log history is a good way to find out at times. Do note "repeatedly violating consensus" of content dispute is not a vandalism act but a destructive behavior, repeated serious disruptive edits would lead to a block as well. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:22, 18 September 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] : Despite the fact that the article is supposed to specifically only cover the upcoming 2021 census, an editor with the username "2021CensusofIndia" added a huge amount of details about all the previous 15 censuses that took place in India. It also brought about a "copyright problems" template, with a request to have those previous version redacted by an administrator. However, the edit was probably done in good faith, as a way of giving the reader a background on the history of censuses in India.

* I could not see the edit as the page has been deleted for copyright violation - see here [2] for such it is difficult to me to make a sound review, and the editor has been blocked indefinately for spamming - see here [3]. However spamming is considered a vandalism act. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

2. [4]: An edit clearly made by an inexperienced editor (in fact the only edit made from that account), which added an obscure writer with no article of his own to the list. The inexperience also shows in the fact that the formatting was all wrong and the name of the writer replaced the category title.

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

3. [5]: Edit made by a new editor adding a paragraph-length essay on the "context" and importance of the US Constitution Amendments and their direct descendance  from the laws of reality themselves at the beginning of the lead. I'm sure the editor believed that the lack of such an introduction was hurting the page and providing one would improve it. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Answer:

1. [6]: If it was just the sentence added to the body that accused MQM of killing, I could have been persuaded that this is a good faith edit that violates WP:NPOV, but without being outright vandalism. Adding the word "racist" to the lead, however, makes it clear that the purpose here is to attack a political party and not to inform the reader.

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

2. [7]: Indiscriminate removal of content from the page, across something like 15 edits. Some removals were marked as "minor", which also counts as WP:GAME. After having their edits reverted by another editor, they once again started removing entire paragraphs from the article with the edit note "because what u gona do", which makes good faith very unlikely.

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

3. [8]: Straightforward vandalism, adding a line saying "it's all fake" to a page about weather stations as a first edit from an unsigned IP.  PraiseVivec (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

---

PraiseVivec 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) 13:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: to report my task. I hope my answers were fine. I've been reading quite a lot on vandalism over the weekend and I feel like I got a pretty good grasp on the whole good faith vs vandalism thing, but please let me know if there're something obvious I missed or if I didn't manage to understand some aspect of it. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

PraiseVivec, Good day. Note: When provide hist diff, pls add "[" before the link and "]" after the link. See review above and let me know if you have any questions or you are really to move on to Assignment 2. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, thanks for reviewing my work. I did actually consider making the diff links easier to read, but for some reason I ended up leaving them as they were. Gonna make them neater in the future. As for the deleted link, I find the situation very interesting. I assumed it was some guy who was very excited about the 2021 India Census and was trying to add context to a page that didn't need it, but I see he was banned for spamming, with "Promotional username, promotional edits" given as reasons. I have to admit I never thought censuses have (or need) promotional efforts so it didn't cross my mind to question the good faith in this case.

Other than that, no questions so far. Ready to move on with the next task. PraiseVivec (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Warning and reporting

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

Please answer the following questions

(1) Why do we warn users?

• Answer:

The dual purpose of warnings is to let good-faith editors know that their edits were unhelpful and dissuade bad faith editors from continuing to conduct vandalism and disrupting edits. There seems to be a certain amount of disagreement on the role of warnings, with some editors believing the role of warnings is mainly to educate, so they are usually to be used on new editors, who might not be familiar with the guidelines, while others believe warnings should be placed on disruptive users regardless of their level of experience with Wikipedia.

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. Warning would be use on both new and experience editors. Both new and experience editors do make disruptive or vandalism edits. However, new editors usually do not know they make a disruptive edits due to they are not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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

• Answer:

The 4im warning is a "first and last warning" template that is meant to be used only when an account is very clearly acting in bad faith and is engaged in excessive or continuous disruptive edits.

N. Although serious disruptive edits would lead to a block, 4im is only for widespread and particularly egregious vandalism such as vandalism only account and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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

• Answer:

You should always use substitution rather than transclution on a userpage. Template substitution can be achieved by adding "subst:" inside the curly brackets, right in front of the template's name.

Y. Always sub is to ensure that the message on the talk page will not change even if the template is changed. Example: sub {{uw-test1}} ---> {{subst:uw-test1}}. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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

• Answer:

Editors who continue to make abusive edits even after reaching the level 4 or level 4im warnings should be reported to Wikipedia:AIV, for a review by an admin who will decide if the editor in question should be blocked.

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

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

• Answer i:

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write.

The Level 1 "Improper humor in articles" warning is used to warn users who added some inappropriate humor content to an article. This is to be used while assuming good faith, as a way of letting the editor know that their jokey content wasn't helpful.

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

• 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.

The Level 2 "Adding spam links" warning is neutral in tone, making no assumption of faith, and informs the editor that adding spam links to Wikipedia is unacceptable.

:Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk)

• Answer iii:

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. 

The Level 3 "Page blanking" warning assumed bad faith and is equivalent to a "cease and desist" letter and sternly asks the editor to stop from removing content.

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

---

PraiseVivec Greetings. Pleas see assignment 2 above and by the way is a "username" assignment in later. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA:Here are my answers for the second task. I hope I understood item number 5 correctly and that is what you wanted me to do. I wasn't sure if you want me just to explain the concepts or to actually find three cases of disruptive editing and issue those warnings and I want for the former. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

PraiseVivec Greetings. for Question 5, the former format/answer is correct. See the review above and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Hi! Thank you for your quick evaluation of my assignment, I'm ready when you are for the next one. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2019 (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

#	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}}	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
1	[9]	Adding profanities in Spanish to a Section title - gave level 2 vandalism warning	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
2	[10]	Blatant vandalism, account's only edit - gave level 1 vandalism warning	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
3	[11]]	New account, most likely testing to see if editing works, made two consecutive edits - gave level 2 test warning	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
4	[12]	Blatant vandalism in repeated form - gave level 4 vandalism warning	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
5	[13]	Plain vandalism, already had a level 1 warning - gave a level 2 vandalism warning	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
6	[14]	Adding a single word, "hi" to the lead, possible test - gave level 2 test warning	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
7	[15]	Repeated vandalism - already on fourth warning so I filled in an AIV report [[16]]	Y. Well-done. see HERE-1 CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
8	[17]	Plain vandalism, already level 2 warning, seemed to be on a spree - gave level 3 vandalism warning
9	[18]	Kept editing the article with anti-feminist rants. Gave level 1 vandalism warning first, then a level 2, then a level 4, as he seemed to be on a spree. Following another edit after level 4, I did an AIV. [[19]]	Y. Good - see HERE-2. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
10	[20]	Repeatedly vandalized the same page, was already on level 3 warning - gave level 4 vandalism warning	Y. see HERE-2. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
11	[21]	Massive deletion of content, in repeated form - gave level 3 blanking warning	{{tick}] you can just report the editor actually on October 9 (editor stopped edit since you warning thought) - see HERE-3. Not only massive of deletion but also violation of WP:3RR. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
12	[22]	Three vandalism edits in a row - gave a level 2 vandalism warning	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
13	[23]	Blatant vandalism with homophobic implications - gave level 2 vandalism warning	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
14	[24]	Vandalizing the infobox, already on level 3 warning - gave level 4 vandalism warning	Y. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
15	[25]	Removal of the lead and inofobox - gave level 1 blanking warning	Y. See HERE-4. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

---

PraiseVivec Good day. You need to apply the what you learn into practice for this assignment. Twinkle does not have all the templates and if Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. Most participants find this assignment a little difficult and if you need help do let me know. When you have done with the assignment and want me to review them, pls ping me. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Hey, I've been trying to patrol recent changes int he last two weeks and I made quite a few reverts and handed out warnings, but I'm struggling with getting to make WP:AIV reports. I've managed to identify several cases in which an AIV report was appropriate, but every time somebody got there before me and made the report before I managed to. Any tips on how to better go about this? PraiseVivec (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

PraiseVivec, There are a few tools to find new edits quickly, but there all have requirements which for your current main space 400+ could not qualified. However, you could ask per permission for WP:STiki tool at Wikipedia talk:STiki talk page and let them know you are enroll in CVUA program and ask for permission to use the tool. cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Hi, again. Well, that took a while. It took me a long time to find appropriate AIV reports that I could make. Nonetheless, I've done a lot of recent changes patrolling these last few weeks and I feel like I'm getting the hang of it. I tried to include more varied examples of my reverts, but to be honest, apart from blanking, most instances of vandalism are pretty straightforward blatant vandalism (mostly by kids, by the looks of it) so I rarely had to use any other type of warning. Looking forward to your feedback. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

PraiseVivec Well-done! It is a little difficult without the proper tool to fight vandalism. You have 500+ edit in main space now. By the time you reach 1K main space edit, then you can download STiki. Btw, for URL link such as hist diff, use single bracket to nest the URL. Use double brackets to nest Wikipedia title. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Shared IP tagging

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Hi PraiseVivec, Posted Assignment 4 above. No exercises for this assignment but only some reading material. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

---

---

Dealing with difficult users

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

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Answer:

Because it's recognition that they want. Because arguing with trolls means they've already won by managing to disrupt the usual interaction. Interacting with trolls almost always leads to more disruption, not less. This is true outside of Wikipedia, as well. Moreover, offering recognition to trolls or vandals also presents the risk of some of them becoming notorious and even celebrated. The last thing we want is to turn them into some sort of anti-heroes worthy of imitation. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Y. 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) 15:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: A good faith user will phrase the question in a way that is meant to actually obtain answers, rather than in a way meant to escalate the situation, disrupt the usual manner of interaction or cause distress to other users. Good faith should always be assumed and a civil response should solve the issue most of the time. That assumption of good faith is subject to suspension should the exchange degenerate into obvious harassing behaviour. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Y Do note sometimes good faith editors do get upset when they edits are reverted. 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) 15:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A disagreement on content dispute - an editor states a message to you "You are an idiot! If you dont have a master degree in History like I, you are not qualify to voice your opinion here for your arguments have no basis and it is a disgrace." Does this constitute a personal attack and why?

Answer:

Yes. The very first sentence clearly qualifies it as such, since ”insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done”. It also qualifies as a personal attack because at no point does the message bring into contention the actual content of the edit, but makes statements about individuals who should or shouldn't be allowed to make edits to a certain page. In addition to being a personal attack, this sort of gate-keeping also goes against the most basic principles of Wikipedia and probably also falls afoul of WP:OWN PraiseVivec (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Y discuss the comment but not the editor. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies.

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

Answer:

Sock puppetry involves the use of alternative accounts, sleeper accounts or other user's accounts to disrupt or circumvent the Wikipedia rules. This also includes logging-out to make edits from an IP rather than a registered account. Convincing other people to create accounts for nefarious purposes associated with sockpuppetry (creating illusion of support, posing as a neutral commentator, avoiding scrutiny etc) are also considered sockpuppetry. There are a number of legitimate reasons for a user to register more than one account, so there should be care in identifying accounts as being sockpuppets. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is the specialized page where suspected sockpuppets should be reported for investigation. Such reports should only be done when accompanied by evidence. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Hi PraiseVivec, See assignment 5 above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

PraiseVivec Hi just wonder do you have any help to work on the assignment above as you have yet to revert with your answer. Cheers.02:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Hi again! Sorry for the long radio silence, but I was out of the country for a while. I hope it wasn't an inconvenience for you. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

PraiseVivec OK. have you finished with the assignment 5 above, if so,let me know so I will review it. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Yes, my assignment is finished. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

PraiseVivec See above comments. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Protection and speedy deletion

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

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

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

Semi-protection is used to protect pages that see a high number of vandalism or other disrupting behaviour which comes from users who are not autoconfirmed. This includes unregistered users, new users, as well as sock-puppets belonging to users who have been otherwise blocked from editing.  PraiseVivec (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Similar to the conditions that lead to a page being semi-protected, the pending changes type of protection is preferred in cases where a page is regularly vandalized, but is otherwise rarely edited. Using pending changes protection on a page with a high edit rate is strongly discouraged. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

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

A page should be fully protected as a way of stopping a content dispute, with an uninvolved administrator locking a stable version of the article in place. Full protection should only be used when the less restrictive forms of protection have failed to protect the page from being the center of severe vandalism or an edit war. Since semi-protection already protects the page from edits by auto-confirmed users, full protection should be used in instances when a page is being disrupted by auto-confirmed or extended confirmed users. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Creation protection is used in cases where a page that was previously deleted keeps being re-created. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

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

A talk page can be semi-protected in case of highly severe vandalism, but should only be protected for a limited amount of time. A page and its talk page should not normally be protected at the same time, as that would leave users unable to propose edits.  PraiseVivec (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 

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

[26] and [27] PraiseVivec (talk) 15:44, 28 January 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 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:

---

PraiseVivec, See Assignment 6 above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)