User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Creffett

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/Creffett.

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.

Good faith and vandalism

1. 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 enabled.

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.

2. In your own words, why it is important to WP:AGF

Answer: A lot of times, problematic edits come from new users. It's entirely possible that the problem is because of a lack of understanding on their part, rather than active maliciousness - maybe they don't understand MediaWiki syntax, or they don't know our rules on sourcing edits, or something like that. If we assume bad faith, that will push those new potential editors away. When we assume good faith, instead of castigating the users, we politely tell them what they did wrong, fix it, and point them at a way to learn, and maybe they'll continue editing and become long-term editors. I generally think of it like a softer version of Hanlon's Razor (except remove "stupidity" and replace it with "inexperience") (and now I see that Hanlon's Razor is linked in the AGF page...I actually thought of that on my own, I promise!). It applies to experienced editors too - it's just as possible for an experienced editor to forget (or even not have heard of) a particular rule, or have gotten angry and done something unconstructive. By assuming good faith there, we maintain a respectful atmosphere and give each other the chance to learn from our mistakes.

. Good. We should always help the new editors who want to provide good contribution and want to improve Wikipedia even at time they might not know the the Wikipedia guidelines. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: The difference is in the editor's intention. I touched on this a bit above, but a good faith edit is when an editor made a change that they thought was correct. A good-faith edit can be wrong (maybe it broke an article's formatting, or it unintentionally violated one of our many policies). A vandalism edit, on the other hand, is intentionally doing something wrong, for whatever reason - maybe intentionally adding factual errors (like addition or removal of the word "not" to change the meaning of a sentence), adding spam, blanking a page, or the ever-popular addition of "graffiti" to a page. There are a few ways to identify vandalism edits - the "graffiti" I mentioned above is pretty much always vandalism (though it shouldn't be confused with someone accidentally adding gibberish as an editing test), when an edit summary doesn't match the contents of a problematic edit that usually means it's vandalism, and if an editor has done the same problematic thing on multiple pages then it's more likely vandalism. When in doubt, though, one should assume good faith.

. Right. The key here is "intention". If an editor intends to help Wikipedia, and the edit is considered disruptive, they are still considered a "good faith" editor especially the new editor does not aware their edits are disruptive. Vandalism is a "deliberate attempt" to harm Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

4. How do we deal with a bad faith registered user and how do we deal with a bad faith IP editor?

Answer: I would treat them pretty similarly - revert the change, warn if necessary, check their contributions to see if there's other things that need reverting. The one main difference is that you can assume that it's always the same person behind a registered account (not always true, but a reasonable assumption, since the latter is against the rules), whereas an IP could have multiple people behind it. Flipped around, an individual person could go through multiple IPs, either intentionally (use of proxies, VPNs, etc.) or unintentionally (dynamic IPs, also IPv6 privacy extensions moving a computer around within a /64). On the administrative side: if someone is acting in bad faith through an individual account, the account can be indefinitely blocked without collateral damage, but if someone is acting in bad faith behind an IP, a rangeblock may be in order, and IP blocks are almost always for a limited duration to minimize collateral damage. Also, in both cases page protection may be necessary if someone is intentionally evading blocks (either via sockpuppet accounts or deliberate IP changes).

We give same treatment to IP or registered user. The action is geared toward their actions but not whether they are registered or not. However, we do encourage IP user (especially school/institute/university) account to register as the accounts are use by many others. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

5. Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. Please revert and provide reason/explanation and hist diff(s).

Answer i: Special:Diff/928645389 - appears to be good-faith content additions, but it's unsourced trivia. AGF-reverted here, message left here.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer ii: Special:Diff/928631430 - Unsourced trivia. Reverted here, message left here.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer iii: Special:Diff/927697461/928639990 - unnecessarily added "anthropomorphic" to the description of every character in a TV show; while accurate, it's excessive to list it for every character if it's a show where all of the characters are anthropomorphic. Reverted here, message left here.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer i: Special:Diff/927990762 - vandalism because it systematically changed the heights of a whole historical basketball team's roster to unlikely values and renamed the entire coaching staff without explanation. Reverted here, warned here.

. For sport / athletes / matches / fights / etc database - we usually would not revert the edits unless we could find the sources in the articles or in the web, or (we follow the sport closely and we know the info well) to verify that the editor has made a deliberate bad faith edit into the article. However, in case of this incident, it is just a common sense that basketball players would usually would not be selected in a team if they are 4'7". CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer ii: Special:Diff/928637347 - misleading edit summary, and I find it a little difficult to believe that someone from the 16th century was a broadband technician. Reverted here, went through their contributions and reverted a couple other cases of vandalism, warned here.

. Common sense prevails here. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer iii: Special:Diff/928648483 - gibberish text, doesn't look like an editing test. Reverted here, warned here.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Creffett 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 with the assignement and ready for a review. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Finished this batch of questions, ready for your review. creffett (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Creffett Good work. See comment above and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA reviewed, no questions. Ready to move on when you are. creffett (talk) 14:53, 1 December 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

Answer: Several reasons. First, as usual, we're assuming good faith - it's possible that a user genuinely wasn't aware that what they did was against the rules, and the warnings clearly spell out what was wrong and where the relevant rules can be found. Second, it can be a useful record for fellow editors - if a user vandalizes and I revert and warn, then another editor reverts them later, they'll see that the user has been warned before and can choose to increase the warning level appropriately. Not foolproof, of course, since the warned editor can remove entries from their talk page. Finally, it serves as a bit of a "four strikes and you're out" counter - if someone has gone all the way through the warning levels and is continuing their behavior without responding to the warnings, then if they're reported to AIV an administrator can see that they've clearly and repeatedly been warned about their behavior.

. We warn users because we want to "educate" them on constructive editing so they may know what they have don incorrectly especially those who are new to Wikipedia and to "deter" them of such actions with stronger warnings leads up to a block. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: Significant and widespread vandalism or disruption from a user - for example, rapidly inserting nonsense into multiple pages or blanking a lot of pages in quick succession. It should only be used when the actions are so obviously disruptive that there's no way they could be well-intentioned. The disruption also be widespread or repeated - I'm sure that there are cases where a 4im could legitimately be issued for a single edit, but I can't think of one.

. Right. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: The warning templates should always be substituted when placed on a user's talk page. It is done with {{subst:uw-templatename}}. Twinkle does it automatically, and there's a bot that comes along and substitutes uw templates if you include them instead of substituting, but it's always best to do the subst yourself.

. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: Report them to WP:AIV, indicate that they've re-vandalized after a level 4 warning.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer i:

Hello, I'm Creffpublic. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Used when someone has changed an article without providing a reliable source. This one should pretty much always start at uw-unsourced1 (since it's reasonable to expect new users to not be familiar with our sourcing policies). For unsourced BLP content, particularly if controversial, I'd use uw-biog1 instead.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer ii:

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

Used when someone is adding inappropriate external links to an article, either after a uw-spam1 or if it's obviously not an appropriate link - for example, if someone added a link to their (relevant) blog to the "External Links" section I'd start with a uw-spam1 since that's probably a good-faith effort to add content, whereas if they're adding multiple in-text external links to their car rental company on the Automobile page, that's more likely spam.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer iii:

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.

Used when someone has continued to vandalize after repeated warnings (generally after a level 3, but if someone were being especially problematic it could be used after a 1 or 2 - say, someone makes a single vandal edit, they're reverted and warned, then proceed to rapidly vandalize several pages). Any further vandalism should result in an AIV report.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Creffett Greetings. Pleas see assignment 2 above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA all set, ready for review at your convenience. creffett (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Creffett, Question 3 i-iii - you need provide the substitute the template - see - Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates. We need your answer (template) as per "What it makes" column. Let me know when you have rework them. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Sorry about that, properly subst'd now. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Creffett, No worries. See comment above. Well-done. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:33, 3 December 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

#	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	Special:Diff/929312926	Looks like a test rather than vandalism to me, especially since the next edit (partially) undid it. Gave a {{uw-selfrevert}}.	Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
2	Test edit	Special:Diff/929313554	Could be subtle vandalism, but changing double brackets to single brackets looks more like a confused new user to me. Gave them a {{uw-test1}}.	Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
3	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	Special:Diff/929621969	Repeated deletion/addition of nonsense to the same page. Reported at Special:Diff/929169771 after four warnings.	Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
4	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	Special:Diff/929169673	Reported at Special:Diff/929169771. On its own it looks like a test edit, but between the misleading edit summary and the recent warnings for vandalism (up to level 4) it was pretty clearly vandalism.	N. Some of the editors edits are considered vandalism but this particular edit was not. To add another genres of music style into the list is not considered to harm Wikipedia at most it might be disruptive if the genres have been listed in other categorizes in page and editor keep on adding it again after receiving been inform the genres are already including in the page on other section. We go back to Assignment 1 here - what is the intention of the editor? and What constitutes blatantly vandalism edit? CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
5	WP:NPOV	Special:Diff/929161012	Non-neutral commentary in a BLP article. Gave them a {{uw-npov2}} since they'd been warned for nonconstructive editing recently.	Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
6	WP:Fringe theories	Special:Diff/930068852	Removal of sourced content (including explicit removal of the pseudoscience tag and mention of "quackery"), undue weight, unsourced. Gave a {{uw-fringe1}} on the IP's talk page.	N. Outsourced content can be removed but I dont see how Fringe theories apply here. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
7	WP:SPAM	Special:Diff/929305683	Looked pretty promotional to me and the IP had stuck links to the same place in three articles (all unrelated to the topic other than mentioning "solar street lights"). Gave them a uw-spam2.	Y Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
8	Talking in the article	Special:Diff/929160409	Comment on whether a claim is reliable in an article - part talk-in-article, part unsourced. Gave the user a {{uw-talkinarticle}}.	N. The edit could considered unsourced. Talking in the article would be something like "I think it is a myth, you can read xxx articled to find out" or "I believe XXX lost the match, this is bullshit, and I am going to change the result here" or "Guys, come on we are agree XXX is a one of the best rap singer in Nigeria" CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
9	Unsourced	Special:Diff/929159996	Unsourced addition of authorship, since neither name was mentioned in the article it should get a reference. Gave the user a {{uw-unsourced1}}.	Y. . CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
10	Your choice	Special:Diff/929469188	Unexplained content removal, gave a {{uw-delete1}}.	Y one of the list was sourced. Note, if editor removed and unsourced content it is not considered vandalism or distributive as unsouced content can be removed from the article as per WP:V. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)
11	Your choice	Special:Diff/929469445	Previous edits changed company name to a competitor, then their next edit kind of fixed it. Doesn't strike me as likely to be an editing test, so gave {{uw-vandalism1}}.	Y. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
12	Your choice	Special:Diff/929471559	Adding odd text to the middle of an article plus "spicy words" suggests vandalism. Gave {{uw-vandalism1}}.	Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
13	Your choice	Special:Diff/929472979	Added what appears to be a meme phrase as a motto (and the "english translation" is a quote from some book). Gave {{uw-error1}}.	{{tick}. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
14	Your choice	Special:Diff/929483207	In two edits, blanked two sections of the same article, plus the keyboard-mashing edit summary suggests non-constructive intent. Gave {{uw-delete2}}.	Y. Removed of sourced content. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
15	Your choice	Special:Diff/929619713	I tagged as uw-fringe1, but in retrospect it might have been better to tag as one of unsourced, original research, talk in article, or maybe POV. Plenty of choices there.	Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
16	Fringe theory	Special:Diff/930365964	Report to AIV here.	Y. Well done. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Creffett Good day. Do download/install and use Huggle if you yet to install it. Note you can use either Huggle, STiki or Twinkle tool whichever suit you for counter vandalism work. Do note I dont think any of them has all the templates so manually subst it if needed. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I've hit almost everything above but I don't think anything I've found so far qualifies as fringe. I'll try looking at reports on the fringe noticeboard, but other than that, any suggestions? creffett (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Creffett NPOV - Fringe theory are those edits departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. We often find edits such as "XXX is the most beautiful actress" / "XXX is so cute and sweet" / "XXX is the best footballer in the word" that are commonly found in Huggle with no source supported the claim (this is could qualify as "unsourced edit as well). The point is that it is an idea/opinion of the editor / a small group of people where by it is not share by sourced mainstream or by prevailing views. Hope this help and if not do let me know. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Thanks, that helps, I thought I was supposed to be looking for "pyramids were built by aliens," "cancer can be cured by cinnamon," that kind of thing. Of course, after all of that, I actually did find a fringe edit. Done, ready for review. creffett (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Creffett for Q2 - please provide different example as it is the same page/editor as per Q1 and see above comment. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA fixed Q2 - accidentally copied the wrong diff. Do you want me to find other examples for the ones you marked as incorrect? creffett (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Creffett Yes please. Kindly find another test edit and replace the info on Q2. Let me know when it is done. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Replaced Q2's link. I also have new examples for fringe (Special:Diff/930365964) and reporting vandalism (reported here after final warning. I can add them to the table if you want, wasn't sure how you wanted me to do that. creffett (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Creffett Well done. I have placed the fringe theory finding in Q16. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:11, 12 December 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 Creffett, Posted Assignment 4 above. No exercises for this assignment but only some reading material. Once you have done reading, pls let me know so I would post Assignment 5 for you. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, read and understood. creffett (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2019 (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 they do for the attention - they like provoking people or enjoy defying authority, especially on the Internet where they're anonymous and rarely face lasting consequences for their actions. Additionally, by reacting strongly to vandalism, we make it seem more important than it really is. If we argue with trolls or get angry at them, then we're just giving them what they want, and that encourages them to continue. By approaching trolls with WP:RBI/WP:DENY, we're refusing to give them the reaction they want and they might get bored because they're not having the desired effect.

. 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) 04:36, 13 December 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: In my experience, good faith editors will just ask why I reverted their edit, possibly with a justification for why they thought it was correct ("I added a link to my blog because I thought people would be interested in my post about the topic"). There's lots of different kinds of trolling - embedding insults or accusations in their question, hounding with repeated inappropriate questions, bringing up a multitude of policies and insisting on a very specific interpretation - but the common theme is that they don't actually care about why I reverted their edit, they just want to provoke a reaction. I actually have a couple cases of these that I've dealt with lately, so here are a couple examples:

Special:Diff/927256049 - user wrote a promotional draft about their company, which I tagged for speedy deletion, and they asked why I tagged it and how it could be improved to meet guidelines. Looked like a reasonable and genuine question to me. I replied with the policies on notability and conflicts of interest. creffett (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Special:Diff/930359090 - I reverted an IP editor's non-neutral edits, they left an impolite talk page message which asked if I support totalitarian regimes. Definitely was inappropriate and inflammatory, might or might not count as trolling (their original edit may have been good-faith, but the talk page message wasn't). Message deleted.

As usual: when in doubt, assume good faith.

Do note sometimes good faith editor do get upset when we reverted their edit and place a warning message and convey their message which might not be pleasant for your standard. Many times troll might not use personal attacks but being rude, condescending, put down, name calling and etc. To check on the editors past edits/talk page would help; however, the bottom line is that trolls want to annoy you and good faith editors annoyed at you and that is the subtle different. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:36, 13 December 2019 (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 where the threat was made (or a diff of the threatening edit). Additionally, I should contact an administrator for revision deletion or oversighting and possible blocking using a private method such as email or IRC (and not via a public noticeboard like AN/I). I'd probably head for IRC and go to #wikipedia-en-revdel to get an oversighter's help.

Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:36, 13 December 2019 (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 - I would rather err on the side of caution and pass it on to someone with more experience. I would make a comment about my suspicions when contacting the WMF and an administrator, but I will leave the final determination to them.

. Use your judgment call and err on the side of reporting if you are not sure. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:36, 13 December 2019 (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's a lot of ways someone can use a sock puppet, the big ones are creating a false impression of support (such as multiple accounts commenting on an AfD or a policy discussion) or getting around rules or sanctions (block evasion is a common example, another example is editing with multiple accounts to make it look like you're not violating 3RR). The point is that the sockpuppeteer wants it to look like the sockpuppets have different people operating the accounts. Suspected sock puppets should be reported to WP:SPI.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Creffett, see Assignment 5 above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, ready for your review. creffett (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Creffett, see above comment and kindly work on the 5.3 question (SOCK) which I just posted. Ping me when you have answer the question. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA 5.3 done, note read, will get to work on the next section. creffett (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Creffett, Done reviewed. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:10, 14 December 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 should be used for articles which are receiving significant vandalism from new/unregistered users or are having problems with sock puppetry. It will not prevent long-term editors from editing the page, but it discourages spur-of-the-moment vandalism (since an editor must be registered for four days before they can be autoconfirmed).

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:02, 6 February 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; it is most useful when a page gets constant but slow vandalism, BLP violations, or the like. It should not be used on pages which receive a high rate of edits from new/unregistered users, since that places a burden on pending changes reviewers.

.The key is low volumn but persistent over time. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Since full protection restricts edits to administrators only, it should be used rarely. It is most often applied in the case of major content disputes and edit warring when semi-protection would not work (that is, the involved parties are confirmed or extended-confirmed). Additionally, high-visibility templates and Lua modules are often fully protected (or template-protected), and some areas, like the MediaWiki namespace, are automatically fully protected.

. Note: In most cases semi protection will be place for edit warring unless the page is subject to "persistent" and "constant" editing warring such as extremely high profile sportsperson or disputes on certain countries. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: A page should be creation-protected if it has been repeatedly recreated after deletion without improving the issues that got it deleted. An example of this that I've seen several times is a company keeps creating a promotional Wikipedia page about itself, and even though the page is speedily deleted as promotional, the page keeps getting re-added.

. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Talk pages should only be semi-protected in the case of severe vandalism. This should be very rare and limited in duration, since talk pages are essential to discussing changes to an article.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 1 (pending): List of proverbial phrases, requested here, applied here.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 22:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2 (pending): Dave Meltzer, requested here, applied here.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer 3 (two semi or full): Special:Diff/936458516 - I requested PC but the protecting admin felt semi was more appropriate.

. See comment on Q3. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Answer 4 (two semi or full): Special:Diff/936468899 - requested as semi, accepted as such.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:02, 6 February 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: A page should be speedily deleted if it meets any of the CSD criteria. In short, those criteria have been agreed upon as situations where a page has virtually no chance of surviving a deletion discussion, so administrators are permitted to delete these pages without the full deletion process. Examples include purely promotional pages, pages which only attack someone, pages full of nonsense, or copyright violations.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

2. Correctly tag four pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons - they can be for any of the criteria). You can tag promo and copyvio on both New Page Patrol and Article for Creation pages at Special New pages Feed but for A7/A9/A11 you could nomination/tag the article in New Page Patrol but NOT in Article for Creation pages. Please post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below.

Answer 1: (promotion) User:Linda JOYGOAL/sandbox, tagged at Special:Diff/930681671 - advertising a company's products, so I requested speedy deletion under criterion G11. Since it looked like marketing copy, there's a decent chance that it was copyvio (copied from a corporate website), I didn't check since it was a pretty clear G11 case. (I know that it shows as deleted under U5 - from past experience, I've found that Fastily prefers to use rationale U5 when deleting inappropriate userspace content).

. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: (copyvio) User:Sonupriya Jhaa, tagged at Special:Diff/930682000 - both promotional for a product and a copyright violation, tagged as both G11 and G12. Same deal as above, I know Fastily deleted it as U5.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Answer 3: (A7/A9/A11) Adan Santiago Igut, forgot to grab the link for the tagging - non-notable autobiography.

. see here. Next time pls provide his diff. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Answer 4 : (Your Choice) Frank de painter, tagged at Special:Diff/930724825 - was just a hyperlink to a news article with no further content. Tagged as A3.

.Well-done. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, See Assignment 6 above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I haven't forgotten about this, just haven't done enough page protection requests. Probably won't finish until after the holidays. creffett (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Creffett, OK. Let me know if you need assistance. Happy New Year. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Creffett Hi, Happy new year and wonder are you back from your holiday/break yet as I have yet to see you work on the assignment. Let me know if you need help. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I'm still here, I just haven't come across any pages needing semi or PC protection yet. creffett (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Creffett For protection, look for sudden increase of multiple editors vandalizing/disrupting a page and it is usually because of the editors disagree of the content or certain issues of the subject provoke emotions in people such as a scandal, sudden death of a famous person or large scale death (terrorist attacks/natural disaster etc.), sport team/sportspeople just won or lost in a match in devastating fashion especial against they biggest rivals, a band just split up, a negative/racial comment makes by a famous celebrity, and etc. Look for UFC 246 on January 18, they page will definitely be vandalized as one of the famous fighter, McGregar, returns to compete after 15 moths hiatus. Hope this help. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Thanks for the tip, I'll keep an eye out. creffett (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA sorry this took so long. I haven't gotten any PC protections yet; I've requested a couple as PC but the protecting admin went for semi. Would you mind reviewing what I have so far? I'll continue to watch for pages where pending changes would be useful. creffett (talk)

Creffett See above, you are doing well so far. See comment on Q3. For pending protection - is persistent but low volumn which might happened over a few days or few weeks. Usually editors try to avoid edit warring so they revert each other edits after 24 hr of their previous edit or editor would only log on to Wikipedia one every few days. You have to look at the article history log. Most CVUA participants find this assignment (page protection) particular challenging especially on pending protection. You would able to find them, just look through the history log. Most vandalism happens during the Friday to Sunday at night (US Time zone). When you have done answering the remaining questions, pls ping me. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Creffett Hi It has been about more than one month now and you still have not answer Q6 (pending protection) and I have . I have provided some info on how to detect pending protection and not sure if there is any more help is needd. Please let me know if you are still interested to be in the program. thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I'm still interested, I've just not been successful at requesting pending changes - almost all of the requests I've made were implemented as semi-protection instead of pending changes. I did get one PC successfully, see above, will continue looking for PC opportunities. creffett (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Creffett Ok thanks for informing. I will look out for PC and if I see them I will forward to you so you may know how they look like and in which article groups. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, finally got a second page PC-protected. See above. creffett (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Creffett Good work. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, Hi See from March 5 onward for pending protection. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, thanks, seen and requested. Also, finished the username section below. creffett (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, Admin gave a Semi-protected indef instead not temporary - well done - [1]. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Creffett Another one for pending protection - see here since March 10, 2020. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Usernames

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

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

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

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

Answer: Probably okay, but if they were (for example) primarily editing Dwayne Johnson, it could be a misleading username (potential impersonation). If they were suggesting that they were in fact the article subject (such as edit summaries like "I'm Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson and this is totally incorrect,") I'd ask them to contact OTRS to identify, otherwise I'd leave them a note suggesting that they change their username because of the potential for confusion.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer: Not okay - promotional username and implies shared use, since it's presumably the name of an organization. I generally evaluate whether to go to UAA based on their editing - if they're creating promotional pages, inserting links to their website, or otherwise making promotional edits, I'd head for UAA, otherwise I'd open a discussion with the user.

{tick}}. Do leave {{subst:uw-coi-username}} or {{subst:uw-username}} on their talk page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer: Not okay - offensive/disruptive username. Report to UAA.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer: Probably not okay, but depends on context - potential to be a promotional username (the staff of a business named Cole's). Would evaluate their editing to see if they're doing anything suggesting a connection to a business named Cole's/Coles. Evaluate based on their edits, and if it does appear to be a promotional username, I'd follow the procedure I mentioned above under LMedicalCentre.

. Good to wait until the start editing and evalute. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer: Not okay - misleading and possibly disruptive in a technical sense (since it would cause a lot of issues with pinging and signing). I'd probably go right to UAA with this one, since it doesn't seem that likely that someone would just happen to come up with that username without knowing the potential disruptive effect.

. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer: Not okay - misleading username (suggests that the registered user is an IP, though that's not actually a valid IP address). I'd probably go to UAA (as above).

. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer: Not okay - offensive/disruptive and a BLP violation. Report to UAA.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, See Assignment 7 above. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA done. creffett (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, Reviewed. Good work!. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:21, 10 March 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 vandalism, on my own user page, on edits you made, on ban/block evasion, or for reverting widespread problematic edits. Basically, any time where the reason you reverted is so apparent that an edit summary isn't necessary, though you should always be prepared to justify a rollback.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer (May not be used): Any time an explanation should be given for a reversion, particularly when reverting good-faith edits. You should use a tool which lets you revert and leave an edit summary in those cases.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?

Answer: You should undo it through a different method (undo, Twinkle, manually making the changes, etc.) and leave an edit summary saying that you're reverting an accidental rollback. Alternatively, if you did intend to revert the change and just used the wrong tool, you can make a dummy edit with an explanation for the revert (e.g. "accidentally used rollback - reverted good-faith unsourced addition").

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Nope, rollback doesn't give a chance to leave an edit summary. You should use an alternative method, like undo or the Twinkle rollback function.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, See assignment 8 above. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, ready for review. creffett (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, Reviewed. See message on Assignment 9 on edit warring. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:01, 10 March 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, as it is unsourced negative BLP content.

it defames the subject. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

Answer: Primarily WP:BLP, also generally the vandalism policy.

and also WP:V and WP:PROVEIT. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{uw-blp2}} (or another one in that series) would be appropriate. I'd start with 2 since adding "so-and-so is gay" is frequently associated with vandalism and difficult to call a good-faith mistake.

or {{subst:uw-vand1}} or {{subst:uw-vand2}}. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 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: No - 3RR explicitly allows for reversion of vandalism.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{IPvandal}}, since it's not a registered user.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Assuming we've worked our way up to a level 4 warning, I would report it as "vandalism after final warning - repeated vandalism on Justin Bieber".

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 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'd be inclined to treat it as a good-faith/test edit if it's just gibberish on one article. It could be intentional vandalism, but better to assume good faith.

. if this is they first edit then we will take it as a test edit. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{uw-test1}}.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 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 an explanation of "reverting test edit."

. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 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: No, the expectation is that they should work their way up to a level 4 warning. I should give them a {{uw-vandal4}} instead and monitor them.

. In most cases yes. However, if all the edits are extremely offensive and we could skip the warning level (we dont need to always follow warning level 1- then 2 then 3 then 4 but we could skip the level. however, to say that, if the editor is new to Wikipedia, we always AFG on their first offence.) In rare occasion we would report if and only if it is considered vandalized only account with extremely offensive edits.. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes, they can be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{vandal}}

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 3

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

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

Answer: I would revert it with the normal rollback option and explain it as reverting an inappropriate/promotional external link.

. it is considered a spam. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

Answer: {{uw-spam1}}.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 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, I would speedy the article. G12 is almost certainly valid if the text is copied from the website. Depending on the exact text of the article, G11 might be appropriate (for example, if the text was something like "Laptops, Inc. is a premier small laptop manufacturer dedicated to delivering optimal solutions to our clients"). If the article is in mainspace, then A7 may also be valid, if the article doesn't make a credible claim of significance - they theoretically could have a credible claim in there ("five time winner of such-and-such notable award"). ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 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: No, it's a blatant username violation, so I would go straight for UAA.

. {{subst:uw-coi-username}} or use {{subst:Db-spam-notice|PageName}}

to indicate that their name suggests a conflict of interest. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes, it is a promotional username, and as the name of a business it also implies shared use.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 4

Please read WP:3RR and WP:Edit warring

What should do if an editor revert non vandalism edits the third times one the same article within the time frame of 24 hours?

Answer: They are liable to be blocked for a 3RR violation. I would give them a {{uw-3rr}} (for newer users) or a more personal message (for users who I'd expect to be familiar with 3RR) and suggest they undo their latest revert. If I were involved, I would try to open discussion on the talk page (though I should have done that a couple of reverts ago). If they continue edit-warring, I would go to the edit warring noticeboard and file a report (using the procedure I explain in the next bullet).

3RR defines as 'An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." For the 3rd 3RR, we send them a {{uw-3rr}} on the talk page and if the continues to edit war the 4th time after receving the 3RR warning message within 24 time frame then we report the involved editor to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Giving personal message is always help to explain the situation to the editor which is good to see you suggested above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

When is appropriate to report editor who violate 3RR to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring?

Answer: Any editor may be reported if they perform more than three reverts to the same article in less than a 24-hour period (with the exceptions of reverts that fall into one of the 3RR exemptions, like reverting spam or sockpuppetry). However, before filing an ANEW report I would make sure I've warned them that they're edit-warring and suggested appropriate resolutions, only reporting if they ignore the warnings and continue edit warring.

. Provide all the hist diff links and necessary info when reporting. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

what advice you would give to editors involved in a content dispute of an article?

Answer: I'd suggest that they stop editing the article and discuss on the talk page. If they can't come to an agreement, they should seek the help of other editors from of our dispute resolution options, such as third opinion (if there are only two editors involved), an RfC, or an appropriate WikiProject's talk page.

Very good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, See Progress Test above. Do note there will be a question on Final Exam requesting you to report a 3RR and Page Protection (pending and normal) and those are the hardest questions faced by most participants. So if you have questions or need any help prior the exam pls let me know. After this progressive test is "7 day mornintoring period, and then follows by Final exam. Cheers (see new message on RPP). CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, done and ready for review, and I saw the message on RPP. creffett (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, Good work. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (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.

Creffett, Greeting. The next phase of this course is Assignment 10 - "monitoring period", see above. Please note if you make hundreds of counter vandalism edit then I cant review them all, so pls keep them less than 50. Once you are through with the monitoring period without any major mishap then final exam questions will be posted. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, Good day I am here to inform you that I have changed my user name to sentence case. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia got it, thanks for the heads up. creffett (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Creffett You 7 day monitoring period has shown no major issues. See below you Final exam question. All the best and pls note the below. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Notes:

To find vandalism edits are not hard, but the hardest are question find pending page protection (low volumn but consistent over a period of time (days to weeks) that means you need to check the articles's history log page
The hardest would be question 8 and 9 (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 question 10-14 (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. This is your last assignment, so get them done to be one of the CUVA graduate. Hope this help.

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 as a good-faith test edit (could be an accident, could be someone just testing how editing works), especially if it's a new editor. Leave a {{uw-test1}} on their talk page.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: Revert and treat as vandalism if it's continuing after the warning or is especially widespread (since at that point it's no longer a good-faith mistake). Leave escalating uw-test warnings on their talk page, report to AIV if it continues after the level 4 warning.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (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: First time: I would post an additional (non-templated) note on their talk page asking them to stop because signatures in articles are distracting.

: Y or provide destructive warning 1. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 4: If they are continuing to do it after that, I would probably escalate to AN/I - it's not vandalism, so it's not a case for AIV, but it is disruptive behavior.

- continue such edit would consider silly vanalism - vand 2 should be given and increase the warning level leading up to a AIV report. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (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: Revert and give them a {{uw-vandalism1}}

If the article is about John Smith, then I will tag

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. and may be included a short message with WP:NPOV info to inform the edit is no based on neutral point of view but opinion. If the article has not relationship to any John Smith person in it, then I will proceed to tag vandalism warning level message. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 6: Escalating uw-vandalism templates, reporting to AIV if they continue after a level 4 warning.

: Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: Revert and treat as a good-faith test edit (pretty clear from their addition), especially if it's a new editor. Leave a {{uw-test1}} on their talk page.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 8: Escalating uw-test templates, reporting to AIV if they continue after a level 4 warning - at that point it's no longer test edits and is just being disruptive.

. or {{uw-vandalism1}}. Cassiopeia^(talk)

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: Revert the removal and give the user a {{uw-delete1}}

. First check the source against the content. If the information was correct, then give the user

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. and write an edit summary indicating that the content is supported by the source, and that if the user thinks the source is wrong they should discuss it on the talk page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 10: Escalating uw-delete templates. I think this would be more a case for AN/I than AIV if they continue after a fourth warning - it's not necessarily vandalism, but is problematic behavior.

AIV is for vandalism report. AN/I is about other matter which need admin intervention. However, certain disturbing behavioral which related to vandalism might need the attention at AN/I for it is a judgmental call. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 11: If the user had a history of positive contributions, I'd be more likely to open discussion with them on the talk page about what they find wrong with the article and reminding them of the expectations on sourcing/deleting content (that they need to provide reliable sources for saying something is wrong and that they should explain their deletion in the edit summary). If they were disruptive, I'd be more likely to just template them, since it's more likely that they're being disruptive than they have an actual good-faith concern with the article content.

. checking the editor contribution log and talk page is a good way to find out the behaviour of the editor. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 12: I don't think I'd do anything - there is nothing wrong with removing unsourced content, particularly in BLPs.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 13: Restore it and post on their talk page suggesting that they gain consensus on the talk page before deleting the content. Of course, if it is actually completely irrelevant to the article (excessive coatracking, for example), I'd have no issue with their actions.

. First check the source against the content. If the content was obviously relevant then revert and warn the user with

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.. If you are not sure whether or not the content was relevant due to lack of knowledge of the content/subject then leave the edit alone and wait for someone more familiar with the subject to decide if it should be reverted. If the content that was removed was was obviously irrelevant then it's a good edit and no action should be taken. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (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: Revert the edit, contact the WMF per WP:EMERGENCY, and also contact an administrator privately to keep an eye on the situation. The administrator may choose to revdel or oversight the threat.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: Same as above - revert, notify the appropriate emergency contacts, privately contact an administrator. Whether or not they're actually planning to harm someone doesn't matter and isn't my judgment call to make.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Part 2 (15%)

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

1. A user blanks Cheesecake

Answer 1: {{uw-blank1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 2: {{uw-attempt1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 3: {{uw-bes1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: {{uw-vandalism2}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 5: {{uw-delete1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

Answer 6: {{uw-test1}}

If it is the first edit by new user then it is a {{uw-test1}}. If not then it is {{uw-disruptive1}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: {{uw-vandalism1}}

.{{uw-test1}} if first edit. {{uw-vandal1}}</nowki> if Tim is not in the content of the article. <nowiki>{{uw-NPOV}} if Tim is in the content of the article. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 8: {{uw-blp1}}

or {{uw-unsourced1}} Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 9: {{uw-blank2}} (possibly 3)

. we could give 4 or im4. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: No template, report to AIV.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 11: {{uw-upv}}

. Since you had a number of problems with the editor then report to WP:ANI for behavioral issue. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 12: {{uw-image1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 13: {{uw-upv}}

. Report the user to AIV. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

14. A user adds "Italic text to Sydney

Answer 14: {{uw-test1}}

only if the this is they first edit. If not then do a revert and just tell them on there talk page about MOS:NOITALIC. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: {{uw-vandalism1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

#	Type	Diff of your revert	Your comment - If you report to AIV please include the diff	CASS' Comment
Example	Unsourced	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
16	Test edit	Special:Diff/947206982	Adding "HI" in the article looks more like test than vandalism to me. Gave {{uw-test1}}.	N. Editor has been editing since 2017 - Always check the contribution log - see here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
17	Test edit	Special:Diff/Special:Diff/959792152	Assuming good faith here - could be an NPOV issue, but I'd just call it a test for a first edit. Gave {{uw-test1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
18	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	N/A	They did a little bit of vandalism, but I reported them (here) because they were continuing to trip edit filters (user and user talk vandalism).	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
19	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	Special:Diff/949522531	Editor repeatedly adding their name to articles. Reported to AIV at Special:Diff/949527501, blocked.	Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
20	WP:NPOV	Special:Diff/947200302	Second non-neutral edit to the page, warned with {{uw-npov2}}	N This is vandalism. NPOV is usually enhance the the topic or subject from plain factual writing. Such as XXX won the fight instead of XXX using his superior skills, overwhelming power and unparalleled boxing style destroy his opponent. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
21	WP:Fringe theories	Special:Diff/947200899	Addition of fringe conspiracy theory content, warned with {{uw-fringe1}}.	Y. Also it is unsourced. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
22	WP:SPAM	Special:Diff/947003530	Since this editor has repeatedly tried to sneak their blog in as a fake reference (and they'd previously been warned with a spam1), gave {{uw-spam3}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
23	Talking on the article	Special:Diff/959789715	Commentary on whether one subject should be in the article, gave {{uw-talkinarticle}}	N it is a more a statement then talking. Talking on the article wold be something like "I am so bored tonight, anyone want to chat with me pls come to my talk page". Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
24	Unsourced	Special:Diff/947206203	Warned with {{uw-unsourced1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
25	Your choice	Special:Diff/951775784	Unexplained removal of a paragraph about a controversy, warned with {{uw-delete1}}.	Y Good - it is a sourced content. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
26	Your choice	Special:Diff/951777982	Unsourced additions to BLP (including claiming that the subject was dead - no idea whether that's true or not, but needs a citation). Gave a {{uw-blp1}}.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
27	Your choice	Special:Diff/954493403	Extensive unsourced additions to BLP. Gave a {{uw-blp1}}.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
28	Your choice	Special:Diff/954491637	Defamatory content on Scott Adams, gave {{uw-blp1}} (in retrospect, probably should have gone with a higher warning number) and requested revdel.	Y. Well-done. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
29	Your choice	Special:Diff/954491838	Unsourced additions to Aero Spacelines Pregnant Guppy, gave {{uw-unsourced1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
30	Your choice	Special:Diff/954493748	Vandalism (listing a human as an example of a "western gorilla"). Gave {{uw-vandalism1}} (probably could have done uw-blp1 instead).	Y Good work. subject is a professinalfootballer - Johan Djourou. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Part 3 (10%)

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

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

Answer 1: {{db-spam}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

Answer 2: Assuming mainspace, {{db-person}} db-person

. A7. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

3. Joe goes to England and comes home !

Answer 3: Assuming this is in mainspace, {{db-nocontext}}

More so a A7. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: {{db-hoax}}

. G3. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

5. Fuck Wiki!

Answer 5: {{db-vandalism}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What would you do in the following circumstance:

6. A user blanks a page they very recently created

Answer 6: If there were no other significant contributors, I would request deletion with {{db-g7}} with the explanation "blanked by author".

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: Probably post a notice on their talk page asking if they intend to edit the article further, if not (or if no response) restore the CSD tag.

. do {{Db-blanked}}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 8: {{uw-afd1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 9: {{uw-afd2}}, 3, etc.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: {{db-g13}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Part 4 (10%)

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

1. TheMainStreetBand

Answer 1: Violation as a promotional username which implies shared use. If they're editing fairly constructively and not promoting the band, I'd message them to suggest a username change, if they're promoting I'd go right to UAA.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

2. Poopbubbles

Answer 2: Violation as an offensive username, report to UAA.

. Maybe slightly offensive to some editors, but not too bad and not breaching poilcy. But if they are making bad faith edits then take action. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

3. Brian's Bot

Answer 3: Not necessarily a violation, but could indicate an unapproved bot. If they haven't specifically marked it as a bot account and linked it to an operator, discuss with the user, the template {{uw-botun}} is built specifically for this scenario.

. Check if it is a real bot, if not report to UAA. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

Answer 4: Violation as a disruptive username (keyboard mash usernames like this are intentionally confusing, usually indicate that it's a one-off account made for vandalism)report to UAA.

. Ask them to change there username as it is hard to read and may be for other editors, but not breaching poilcy. But if their edits are bad faith then report to UAA. Cassiopeia^(talk)

5. Bobsysop

Answer 5: Violation as a misleading username (suggests that the user is a sysop, I'm assuming that they're not one). Since "sysop" is also used to refer to the job of systems administrator, they might just be "Bob the sysop" in their day job, so I'd discuss with the user and suggest that they pick a different name, only reporting to UAA if they did not change the name. The one exception is if they were being actively disruptive (e.g. threatening to block people), in which case I'd report to UAA.

}. f it is a real sysop then leave it, but if not report to UAA as it is misleading for editors. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

6. 12, 23 June 2012

Answer 6: Violation as a misleading/disruptive username, names that look like timestamps are specifically mentioned as problematic. I'd discuss with the user, only reporting to UAA if they refused to change the name or were especially disruptive.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

7. PMiller

Answer 7: Usually not an issue, unless they're editing the page of someone named P. Miller or otherwise claiming to be that person. In that case, discuss the concerns about the username with them, and if they claim to be that person, ask them to verify with OTRS. If they are being actively disruptive and there is cause for concern (e.g. making defamatory statements about the person they claim to be), report to UAA.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

8. OfficialJustinBieber

Answer 8: Almost certainly an impersonation, so misleading username (claiming to be a real person that they're not). Report to UAA and request a verification block.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

9. The Dark Lord of Wiki

Answer 9: No issue - it could suggest they're here for "evil," but it's not blatant enough to suggest disruption.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

10. I love you

Answer 10: I think it's okay. I could see someone having a problem with it as a name intended to provoke a reaction, but it doesn't seem bad enough to warrant a change or a block.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Part 5 (10%)

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

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

Answer 1: Edit warring can happen (if a vandal repeatedly vandalizes a page and you repeatedly revert it), but reverting vandalism is explicitly listed as not a violation of the 3RR rule.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 2: WP:AIV, they should have vandalized after a final warning. You would then report them as a vandalism-only account that vandalized after a final warning.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

Answer 3: WP:AN/I, you should explain what the problem behavior is and provide diffs. You're required to notify the other editor that you have reported them there.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: WP:UAA, with an explanation of what username rule their username violates (e.g. name is offensive or is promotional).

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 5: They should be discussed with the editor conducting personal attacks, and if they continue or the attacks are particularly bad, they should be reported to WP:AN/I with an explanation of the behavior.

. If the account making the personal attacks is vandalism only it should be reported to WP:AIV. If it is not, you should open a case about the user's behaviour at WP:ANI. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 6: WP:ANEW, providing diffs of the reverts, attempts to resolve the edit war (e.g. on the talk page), and 3RR warnings.

. Users involved in the report should be notified on their talk pages. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: WP:BLPN, with explanation of the possible violation. Editors reported to BLPN should be notified with the appropriate template.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 8: WP:SPI (either opening a new case or associating it with an existing sockmaster), providing evidence of why you believe the editors are engaging in sockpuppetry. creffett (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 9: WP:RFPP, providing an explanation of why protection is appropriate (e.g. persistent vandalism or BLP violations)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: As with answer 6, WP:ANEW, providing all of the relevant diffs

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Part 6 - Theory in practice (40%)

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

Answer 1: (semi) 55th_Sustainment_Brigade_(United_States), requested at Special:Diff/946637450.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: (semi) Daniel Obinim, requested at Special:Diff/947208487.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 3: (semi) Wikipedia:Edit filter helper, requested at Special:Diff/949984748.

Answer 4: (pc) The Crickets, requested at Special:Diff/948860980.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 5: (pc) Domain authority, requested at Special:Diff/950013056.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 6: (presumably) good-faith edit to add content to a category page. Reverted here (with an explanation in the edit summary), welcomed here.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 7: Self-reverted edit: self-reverted here, warned here.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 8: Special:Diff/947045329, I initially gave warnings to both parties, but since it was particularly egregious (multi-day edit war between an experienced editor and an anonymous editor) I later went to ANEW.

. both parties warned insead of a block. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 9: Special:Diff/959830621. As above, I originally gave an edit warring warning since I originally just saw two reverts, but on further inspection I found a two day long edit war so I reported to ANEW.

. Editor was giving a free pass as per newbie page protected - see here comment by admin. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 10 promotion: Draft:Voxa, requeted at Special:Diff/946486745

. I think the page was recreated. Cassiopeia^(talk)

Answer 11 copyvio violation: Draft:Modern_Films, requested at Special:Diff/946428434

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 12 copyvio violatio: Draft:Barbizon Chique, requested at Special:Diff/947020485

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 13 Your choice: Smt_Vimlesh_Rathore_Global_School, A3 (article was just the name of the school and a link to the website), requested at Special:Permalink/947118890

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 14 Your choice: Draft:Dove Men In Stem, G1 (article was indeed nonsense, just a couple of gibberish all-caps sentences), requested at Special:Diff/948256604

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: Discovermuscatine (newspaper name, promotional and implies shared use), reported at Special:Diff/946738034

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 16: Stricee (website name, so promotional and implies shared use), reported at Special:Diff/946737964

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 17: AapliNaukri (website/corp name, promotional and implies shared use), reported at Special:Diff/946639434

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 18: ICNAReliefUSA (name of a non-profit organization, implies shared use), reported at Special:Diff/946484727

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 18.5 (you said five name above but there are only four slots, so this is my fifth): Solarisesys (corp name, promotional and implies shared use), reported at Special:Diff/946494143

. thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 19: Edit warring is prohibited because it is disruptive to the encyclopedia (since the article will keep flipping back and forth between two versions) and because it leads to fights between editors and a non-collegial atmosphere.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 20: Edit warring is caused by disputes about article content which are not followed by discussion - instead of following WP:BRD and discussing on the talk page or seeking dispute resolution, editors just revert the article to their preferred version (perhaps with commentary in the edit summary).

. Or it could also occur if users are trying to discuss the changes through edit summaries rather than doing so properly on the talk page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 21: Vandalism on BLPs can affect a real person - it could be libelous, affect their privacy, or otherwise have a negative impact on them, and so has to be dealt with quickly and properly.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 22: Ignore them (/revert harassing messages, if applicable) at first per WP:DENY, if it continues take it to WP:ANI.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 23: Trolls want attention, especially by provoking emotional reactions from other editors in a place where they can't really suffer any consequences for their actions. By ignoring them and following WP:DENY and (for admins) WP:RBI, we're refusing to give them the reaction they want, and they'll hopefully get bored and leave.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 24: Semi-protection allows autoconfirmed editors (editors with an account more than four days old who have made at least 10 edits) to edit the page, which blocks unregistered users and new users from editing a page. Full protection prevents anyone who is not an administrator from editing.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 25: Personal attacks disrupt our editing environment by making it hostile to contributors. If you engage in personal attacks, you are commenting on the person who made a change rather than the change itself, and may push that person away from editing because they feel uncomfortable.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Creffett See Final exam above. Good luck!. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Creffett good day, you have only less than 5 questions to compete the final exams, I hope you have the time to complete it soon as it has been 2 months since I posted the final exam questions. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia thanks, I'm sorry that this took so long - with everything going on lately this just kind of dropped off my radar. I think everything is complete now. creffett (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Creffett I understand, covid-19 does effect our life at this moment. I was lucky that I just got home 6 weeks prior it hits AUS and I moved to different state and city few hours before the country and states lockdown. I will review the final in next few days. Stay safe Creffett and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Final score

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage
1	15	12.5	15%	12.5%
2	30	24.5	30%	24.5%
3	10	10	10%	10%
4	10	9.5	10%	9.5%
5	10	10	8.5%	9.5%
6	25	25	40%	25%
TOTAL	100	91.5	100	91.5%

Completion

Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction! You have now graduated from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy and completed your final exam with 88.5%. Well done!

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

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.

Hi Creffett It's been a pleasure to work with you over the past few months. I hope you gained something from this CVUA program. Do download WP:Huggle if you havent as this is a great vandalism tool to use. I use both Twickle and Huggle but they do not have all the warning templates install in the system. So when require, manually subst them. to Do drop by my talk page you have any questions as I am here to help. Best of luck, and thank you so much for your willingness to help Wikipedia in this role. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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