User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Fade258

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/Fade258.

Make sure you read through Wikipedia:Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

How to use this page

This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.

Once you graduate I will copy this page into your userspace so you have a record of your training and a reference for the future.

Twinkle Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.

Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.
I have twinkle enabled.

@Cassiopeia, I had already enabled Twinkle. Thank you !Fade258 (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism

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

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

Answer:

Good Faith edits are made in good-faith, but fall short of guidelines and policies of Wikipedia such as WP:NPOV, WP:MOS, WP:BLP, WP:NOTABILITY etc.

In other words, A good faith edits is one who made with the intention to improve the article but actually not helpful.

In conclusion, A good faith edits is done by someone who is willing to improve the project based on their writing skill, knowlege on specific topic etc.

I would tell them as a good faith edit because user simply edit the article but their edits does not helpful or sometime it may disrupt the article.

Vandalism is malicious editing with the intention to disrupt the encyclopedia. It can be occured by Newly users, as they don't know how Wikipedia works.

In other words, Vandalism is define as a intention to obstruct or defeat the Projects Purpose which is to create a free encyclopaedia.

Some of the types of vandalism are:Abuse of tags, Account creation, malicious, Avoidant vandalism etc.

I would tell them as a vandalic edits because their edits makes the bad impact towards the readers and project purpose as well as makes the article uncomfortable to read.

Fade258 The question above is a 2 part question. Pls answer the second part. Once you have finished, pls ping me. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

. The key here is "intention". If an editor intends to help Wikipedia, and the edit is considered disruptive, they are still considered a "good faith" editor especially the new editor does not aware their edits are disruptive. Vandalism is a "deliberate attempt" to harm Wikipedia. Editor might edit adds incorrect or unsourced information and this does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal; We tell them apart by their "intention". You would check the editor history log and talk page to see their editing patterns to determine their questionable edits.

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

Answer:

(1) [1]- Comment: In my first glance it looks vandalism but when i saw that the user is strange and the content is assumed as true.

. We dont "assume" but we check the info against the source to verify the info added/changed. Secondly, I dont understand what you meant by the user is strange, pls explain. We would take the edit as unsourced but I have a quick check PEW as stated in the chart, it indicate 99.7 the population is 99.7% but there is not indicated how many % is Sunni and how many is Shia muslins. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Answer: Explanation of editor is strange:

I mean to say that strange is a person/user in the context of Wikipedia who edit Wikipedia without providing their username.

Fade258 You have thousands of edits in Wikipedia and by now you should know that everyone can edit Wikipedia without register as a user. We call those unregistered user IP user and they are identify by the IP number when they edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 20:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

(2) [2] - Comment: This good faith edits is especially in point of view from the Reliable Sources.

. The edit did provide source and the revert of Ken Tony was wrong. Pls do not take other editor revert as their action is correct. You need to understand and judge what constitute a good faith edit and what is not yourself. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

(3) [3] -Comment- As per WP:MOS

. The editor adding back the content which was deleted by User Scientist Dharna in this edit and secondly you didn specific which MOS you referred to. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

4)[4] - Comment: Assumes good faith. User's inclusion is acceptable but the added content was already included in the article. So, I don't think that the user had any bad intention.Fade258 (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

5)[5] - Comment: Assumes good faith edit. The information is 100% true but the information is already in the third line of article.Fade258 (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't have the nick name parameter, and for such the info didnt show up. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

6) WP:MOS[6] - Comment: Assumes good faith. The text is good but it wasn't helpful as it fall short of Wikipedia guidelines of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Links.Fade258 (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

(7) WP:MOS - [7] - Comment:This link was already picked up by me as an optional.The user had done serveral disrupt edit in wikipedia but user tried best to contribute.This time user added (#) which is not acceptable.So, I assume good faith.see this is guidelines and in fact external links doesn't use numbers.Fade258 (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)WP:MOS

Fade258 additional question for (6) was meant for MOS and you deleted - see [

here . Pls do not delete it next time. Pls answer a good faith edit which involved MOS and pls specific which MOS guidelines you refer to and the reason you chose this edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:, I had add one more good faith edits.Please review.If i got green tick this time that would be a good indicator to me and if not it means i have to do more.Fade258 (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

(8) WP:MOS - [8] - Comment: Assumes good faith. This may be helpful but it fall short of Wikipedia guidelines of WP:MOS. The guidelines that I picked up here is MOS:INFOBOXFLAG.Fade258 (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 additional question for (6) was meant for MOS and you deleted - see [

here . Pls do not delete it next time. Provide you answer after MOS - another words, keep the WP:MOS on (8). Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:,I don't understand what you are telling.As i already provided good faith edits and i mention the MOS guidelines as well.Fade258 (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 Since you deleted the MOS on initial question (6), which question you answered is MOS? Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:, Good faith edits no 6 and 7.Fade258 (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 Ok thank you. Pls do not delete it (any text on the answer sections in the future). Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Sorry mam for mistake. I will not repeat such mistakes in future.Fade258 (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Mam, I had added one more good faith edits as per WP:MOS. To confirm my understanding of WP:MOS. Please review.Fade258 (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Answer:

(1) [9]-Comment: In my first glance i saw that it is vandalic edits that makes this article untidy.

. It was a vandalism edit but making an article untidy is not a vandalism. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

(2) [10] - Comment: In this vadalism example it is pure vandalism that disrupt the content of the article based on the article title name.

. It is more a like a disruptive edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

(3) [11] - Comment: For this case i take this as vandalism because the sources are not run.

it is somewhat considered a promotion but not because of the source.

Answer: What did you mean by the sources are not run?

I mean to say that the source were not open/access to me.Which doesnot support the provided information. so, i think that it was vandalism. Later, I realized that it was not Vandalism.

Fade258 If you look at the edit again, the URL was provided and I would access it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 20:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

(4) [12] - Comment: Vandalism is clearly visible. User had removed the sources content and added the offensive word to the BLP.I think user had expressed hate towards the person.Fade258 (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

(5) [13] - Comment: The user had added offensive word and unsourced material to the BLP.Looks like the user is trying to work out with their humour.Fade258 (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

(6) [14] - Comment: In this case vandalism is clearly visible. User added the offensive word called (Chor) which is called (thief) in english.Fade258 (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 Good day.

(1) 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.

(2) Do note, you need to provide the hist diff as per diffs guidelines and not you usual hist diff link.

(3) pls note (important) - do not revert more than 3 times within 24 hours on the same article unless the edits are absolutely considered blatant vandalisms for you will be blocked from editing.

(4) If you are not sure about the edits (whether it is a vandalism or not", pls do nothing and let other more experience/counter vandalism editors to take action.

(5) Pls provide your justification/reasons/analysis which supported by the guidelines to all your answers.

(6) Pls note that the motto of CUVA is Civility – Maturity – Responsibility.

(7) When you have done with the assignment, pls ping me. If you have any question while working on assignment, pls let me know. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:, In the first assignment of good faith edits section you write WP:MOS at no.3.What is that i donot understand.Fade258 (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 I moved the question to this page (the program page) as the question is related to the assignment. You need to find an edit where by the editor is made an error in good faith as per WP:MOS. Pls go to MOS and read up the guidelines. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Fade258, pls read point 5 on my first message above and pls include them on all your answers. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia sir, I have finished my first assignment.Please review when you are free.Thank you!Fade258 (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: sir, Sorry for my misunderstanding the question.Now, I have finished the 2 part answer as well.I hope I had done correctly. Thank you !Fade258 (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Fade258, First of all, pls add an additional " : " (colon) from the previous message thread for one space indentations to the right as this is the communicaation protocal. Pls see Help:Wikitext for additional Wiki markup. Secondly, pls provide hist diff as per item 2 listed in the first message I sent in this communication section, and provide the hist diff in the format mentioned for "good fait" and "vandalism" questions and from here on. Thirdly, pls read the information provide carefully and adhere to the instructions given. When you have done, then ping me. Lastly, In Wikipedia, if you dont know the gender of the editor, we address them by their user name and instead of using he/she/his/her, we use their/them. Btw, I am a female. Just call me Cass. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia,Sorry for that misunderstanding. I think this time i had done correctly.Fade258 (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 I think you edited on your mobile. Example the hist diff you provide this-1, I need it like this-2. Go to the history page of the article, select wanted edit (the round dot will turn blue) and the previous edit of this one. In other words, the hist diff of 2 blue round dots. Copy the URL of your selection and nested the URL in open and clos square bracket. That is your hist diff. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia mam, I edit through mobile.As per your guidance this time I had done.Please review it.Fade258 (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 pls see comments above. Pls explain again of those 2 pharase which they dont make sense to me. Lastly, pls answer addition 6 questions which I just added. Pls read again WP:AGF, WP:VANDALISM, WP:NOT VANDALISM and WP:MOS before answering the questions. Take your time. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: mam, Sorry for pinging you.Can i add good faith edits which has been done by another users as their good faith edits were correct.While answering this time should i follow same pattern. Fade258 (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 for your question above, pls READ AGAIN the assignment info and you can find your answer. Once again, Take your time, read the assignment info and reading material. If you dont understand the first assignment you would find the rest of the assignments a lot more difficult. Cassiopeia^(talk) 20:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: mam, I had finished my assignment and submitted it for review.If still i done any mistake then give me more assignment to rectify my mistakes. Thank you and Stay safe!Fade258 (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 Good work. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: mam, In case the new user had done mistake on their first edit by adding (WIKIPEDIA IS GREAT) in this project page. How can we handle this?Fade258 (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 The edit is considered a disruptive edit and if the editor continues to add the same content after receiving it could considered a vandalism edit . If it is in an article page say Nepal, then it would considered (1) unsourced (2) WP:NOPV or disruptive and would considered a vandalism if the editor continue to add the same content to the same page. Note: unsourced or disruptive is not considered vandalism; however, if the same editors continue to do the same type of edit many time after receiving many warnings, they could be blocked from editing. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia mam, If that was the disruptive edits then what type of warning or level should be implement/taken to warn?Fade258 (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Fade258, We generally would give level 1 for the first occurrence unless it is widespread disruptive edits. This warning level is covered in Assignment 2. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Ohh sorry for too early. Mam, If the new user edit any people's biography article and change the birth date which is not provided in the source then it would be considered as a vandalism or not. I ask you this question beacuse the user is new and this is the user's 1st edit as well.Fade258 (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Fade258, Pls provide hist diff. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Mam, Here is the his diff.Fade258 (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 many edits depending on the situations (you will see in later assignments) and in future pls provide hist diff for the questions. If the edit is the first edit make by new editor and the change of DOB is the date or month then we would take it as unsourced/test edit. If the user change the year different by a few years then that is also considered unsourced/test edit. If the change of sourced DOB of the year from say July 1, 1972 to July 1, 1800 (which means subject is dead and not a BLP) then it is considered a vandalism. The page Soundarya existing source - see here -1 indicate the BOB is 18 July 1972 but in other source Times of India - see here-2 is July 18, 1976. You can check Indian languages MAJOR newspaper (if you know the Indian languages) to confirm the DOB. Change to the right DOB with inline citation and then inform the editor about in with a personal message. Btw, test edit is covered in another assignment. (Note: if you verify the existing source and the editor changed the DOB to 1976 on their first edit, we could take it as test edit; however, on their second same edit after receiving the warning, we could take it as vandalism edit; however, upon checking on the we Times India indecates the DOB is 1976, we take the edit as good faith where the "intention of the editor" might read the source indicate the DoB 1975. So we go back on what we have learned on this assignment, always ask ours elf what is the intention of the editor, is the editor trying to improve Wikipedia page or to harm the project.) In this assignment, what you need to understand what are vandalism edits and what are not (good faith) edits. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Mam, Thank you for clarification. Is there any difference between good faith edits and completely good faith edits? Fade258 (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 good faith is good faith. Do note, sometimes we might not know if an edit is good faith or not as we might not know the subject (the article) well to determine the nature of the edit. For example, if you not able to know if an edit make on certain countries/cultures/histories/politics/sports which you are not familiar with where by the info usually can be found on local languages which you could not comprehend due to finding the sources would be a difficult task then in such cases, do leave the edit alone and let other editor who know more about the subject to action. In the same token, if you can determine the edit is a vandalism edit or not, leave the edit to a more experienced editor or a editor who are more familiar with the subject to action. This is happens often on in sport or live sports news where by the results of the matches/games/fights or the sports data of the sportmen. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thank you mam. Likewise vandalism. Is there any project page about Anti-vandalism? Fade258 (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Fade258, No but we have Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit which is linked back to CUVA. Pls read additional italic texts I placed on my previous message. If you have no questions for Assignment 1 and would like to proceed to Assignment 2, then lest me know. Cassiopeia^(talk) 20:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: No more question for Assignment 1. Thank you mam for your valuable time for taking my questions and makes me clarified about vandalism and good faith edits. I will inform you when I ready for next assignment. Stay safe and best!Fade258 (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Cassiopeia: mam, I am here to inform you that I am ready to move on next assignment. Thank you ! Stay safe and happy.Fade258 (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2021 (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: We warn users to notify them of the issues they have caused, so they need to know to correct their mistakes. If they are acting in good faith, this serves as a piece of guidance to prevent them from doing it again, however if they are not acting in a good faith then it serves as a warning to stop.
Main purpose: Warning the user's main purpose is to educate the editors, who had done unconstructive edits.
Advantages from my point of view:

It helps the patrollers and counter-vandalism volunteers to recognise a repeated offender, seeing on their talk page.
It helps administrators to decide if the editor should be blocked or not.(Receipt of severe warnings may lead block)
It also helps the editor to communicate, if they are facing any sorts of problem related to Wikipedia thorough this channel. Fade258 (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

. The purpose is to "educate" the editors on constructive editing, especially those who are new to Wikipedia and to "deter" them of such actions with stronger warnings leads up to a block. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer: According to WP:UWLEVELS, 4im assumes bad faith, and is only reserved for the issues of gross, extreme or numerous vandalism. In the case of excessive disruption(Offensive stuff, inserting vulgar and other highly defamatory text) and continuous disruption(A long history of adding obvious vandalism) from a user or specific IP, this is issued as the only warning(final warning to stop immediately otherwise user will be blocked without further notice) to the editor. Fade258 (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

. 4im is only for widespread and particularly egregious vandalism and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer: Yes, I would substitute a template in a user's talk page beacuse it could help the user to know about the usage of template, how to use a template to prevent changes on template message when changes to template documentation are made and It can mislead new users as well as the patrollers. For substituting a template on user's talk page, we should add subst: follwed by a template name. For example: I will use {{subst:uw- vandalism1}} for a user who had vandalised a article.
Note: I have added a space between uw & vandalism1 to stop it expanding here. Fade258 (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

. It should be used always so that the message on the users talk page does not change even if the template you used were to be altered at a later date. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer: If a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning level, they shoud be reported to the WP:AIV. Thereafter, An administrator will review their(editor) edits and would take an appropriate decision. Fade258 (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer i: {{subst:uw-delete1}}
Expanded form/usage: Hello, I'm Fade258. 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.
Comment: This is the level 1 delete warning template which is normally placed on user's talk page to warn the editors when they have removed or deleted sourced content without proper explanation for the first time. Fade258 (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer ii: {{subst:uw-advert2}}
Expanded from/usage: Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you.
Comment: This template is a level 2 advert warning template used to warn editors for repeated instances of advertising or promotional content on Wikipedia, while the user have been already warned once using a level 1 template. Fade258 (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer iii: {{subst:uw-disruptive3}}
Expanded from/usage:

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

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

Comment: This template is a level 3 disruptive warning template which is used as a warning message to the editor and notify him/her against disruptive editing. This should be used in those cases, where the editor has severely disrupted one or more than one pages. It assumes bad faith and generally depicts a higher level of disruption and includes a warning of being blocked. Fade258 (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 See assignment 2 above. For question 5 - subs three different templates (different warning and different level of warning}} see example below.

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.

Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 AGAIN, pls read all the reading material links before answered the questions - see questions 3. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Mam, You had added Why, after the answered by me anyway I will see and answer again.Fade258 (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Mam,Please review. I have completed the work and reworked on Qn 3. I think i had done correctly. If any mistakes with my work then kindly point out to me. Thank you!Fade258 (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 Reviewed. See comments above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Mam, Is any thing mistake in answer of Qn.3? As you didn't review it.Fade258 (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Fade258

Done. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Tools

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

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

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

Twinkle

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

User creation log

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

Rollback

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

Huggle

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

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

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

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

#	Type	Diff of your revert	Your comment - If you report to AIV please include the diff	CASS' Comment
Example 1	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[15]	Already had up to level 4 warnings today on this article from other users, so straight to AIV My report to AIV Thankfully they were very rapidly blocked by the admin [16] Later, the admin hid the edits made by this editor - see User Contributions so my diff in 3rd column no longer works unfortunately - see also admins deletion log [17]
Example 2	WP:NPOV	[18]	Added their own opinion "...well known for causing trouble" about a protest group, this editor already had level 1 NPOV warning today, so I gave a level 2 {{subst:uw-npov2}}.
1	Test edit	Liam Thompson (YouTuber): [19]	This is IP's first edit where the user had added hi which seems to be a test edit. So, placed a {{subst:uw-test1}} on user's talk page [20]	Y. Good. Cassiopeia talk 06:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
2	Test edit	AccuWeather: [21]	Since, it was the firs edit of IP and added a letter so, I placed a {{subst:uw-test1}} on user's talk page [22]	Y. Good. Cassiopeia talk 06:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
3	Vandalism (report to AIV)	(Note: Vandalised on two articles) Nivetha pethuraj: [23] and Rajesh Hamal: [24]	Silly vandalism and added offensive word i.e (HIV AIDS and theif) respectively. Since, the user had already got the warning level up to 3 by ClueBot NG and I warned by {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} on user's talk page [25]. When, the user had vandlised the second article, I warned by {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} as a only warning on user's talk page [26]. I reported to AIV after the level 4 warning and later on blocked by the administrator.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 06:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
4	Vandalism (report to AIV)	Rajesh Hamal: [27] Aanchal Sharma: [28]	The user had added a offensive word to the BLP which is BLP violation and vandalism. So, warned by {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} on user's talk page [29] followed by {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} on user's talk page [30] and reported to AIV and got blocked by an administrator.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 06:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
5	WP:NPOV	Engin Altan Czyatan [31]	Since, This was a IP's first edit where i consider it as a good faith but it has a WP:NPOV issue as well. So, placed a {{subst:uw-npov1}} on users talk page [32]	Y. Well=done. Cassiopeia talk 06:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
6	WP:NPOV	Kajol: [33]	The user had added his/her opinion which is not suitable in Wikipedia which is a basic NPOV violation and warned by ClueBot NG on user's talk page [34]	N. You are the one need to find the edit and warn the user and not other editor or ClueBot. However, the NPOV is correct. Cassiopeia talk 06:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
7	WP:SPAM	Birendra Multiple Campus: [35]	User had added the Facebook link which is a opposite of Wikipedia guidelines and it is not a place to make a personal relation. So, lefted a {{subst:uw-spam1}} on user's talk page [36]	Y. Cassiopeia talk 06:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
8	Talking on the article	Abhinaya (actress) [37]	This is the IP user's second edit and added text likely a conversation where IP had already added this text in IP first edit. And I assumes it as a good faith(Despite a BLP article and I didn't see any offensive word in this text) as I didn't see any bad intention. So, warned by {{subst:uw-talkinarticle2}} on user's talk page [38] as the IP user had already warned once by ClueBot NG.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 06:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
9	Unsourced	Rose West: [39]	Since, it was a IP's first edit and added information but unsourced, good faith as well so placed a {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} on user's talk page [40]	Y. Cassiopeia talk 06:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
10	WP:MOS	Prakriti Shrestha: [41]	The user had changed the date format which is opposite of WP:MOS guidelines. The guidelines i picked up here is MOS:DATEFORMAT. So, warned by {{subst:uw-mos1}} on user's talk page [42]	Y. Cassiopeia talk 06:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
11	Vandalism	Ai Otsuka: [43]	IP user added offensive word to the BLP. So, placed a {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} on user's talk page [44]	Y. Cassiopeia talk 06:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
12	Unsourced	Jaroslav Miller: [45]	Added the information which is assumed to be a good faith by looking this user's overall contributions and this time it is unsourced. And this user was already warned i.e. {{subst:uw-copyright-new}} So, I placed a {{subst:uw-unsourced2}} on user's talk page [46]	Y. Cassiopeia talk 06:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
13	Vandalism	Brian Bell (American football): [47]	This IP user had added inappropriate word to the BLP which is a BLP violation and I assumed it as a bad faith. So, placed a {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} on user's talk page [48]	Y. Cassiopeia talk 06:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
14	Unsourced	Joe Slade White: [49]	IP user had added information which is assumed to be good faith but it is unsourced. So, placed a {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} on user's talk page [50]	Y. Cassiopeia talk 06:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
15	Test edit	Open addressing [51]	Since, This was the first edit of IP user's where IP had added space. So, warned by {{subst:uw-test1}} on user's talk page [52]	Y. Cassiopeia talk 06:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 Good day. See assignment 3 above and do note this is the hardest assignment in this program, so do that your time.

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

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

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

(4) For "You choice" question - Pls indicate what type of edit you are providing - example change "Your Choice" to "Delete" / "Spam" /etc. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

(5) Again, if you are not sure about the edits wheather is vandalism or god faith edit, pls do nothing and let other more experience editors to acction

@Cassiopeia: Mam, I request you to give me time till this 24 August to complete this assignment 3 beacuse I still not reported any user for AIV, not warned many user and my exam is from next Sunday. So, I will need more time. Hope you understand. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 Take your time and spend time to prepare your school exam first. . Pls note the edit to be made from August 1, 2021 onwards. Cassiopeia^(talk) 20:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Mam, Greetings. Yesterday, My exam of C-12 has been postponed due to ongoing situation of global pandamic Covid-19. So, I will complete my this assignment as soon as possible. Stay safe. Thank you !Fade258 (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 Ok. Thank you for informing. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 01:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Mam, Is am i right that talking in article means Like a conversation or ask somebody to talk with that particular user.Fade258 (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 That is right (in the article and not in the article talk page). Cassiopeia talk 20:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:, Mam Iam sorry for my delay in answering. I didn't found that needed category edit. So, I will inform you that, I will complete my work as soon as possible as I can. Thank you !Fade258 (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 ok. thank you for informing. Cassiopeia talk 06:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:, Hello mam, Sorry for my delay in answering. I have completed and submitted for review, review as you are free. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 Good work. See comments above. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 06:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Mam, Sorry for delay in reply. Please tell me, If some one add content which is different from topic then how we treat them ? For example: i.e topic is Aanchal Sharma and the editor add different content. Fade258 (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 Pls provide hist diff. Cassiopeia talk 03:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: No mam I didn't have hist diff. I asked you only for knowledge. Fade258 (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 Are you saying if the content added is not about the article subject? example the subject is an architect and the content added is about a singer?

@Cassiopeia: Mam, Yes. Fade258 (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 We just simply removed the content, explain that in the edit summary and send a message to the editor what added content of the removal and the reason. Cassiopeia talk 04:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Mam, I am ready to move on next assignment. Fade258 (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2021 (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 Fade258, Posted Assignment 4 above. No exercises for this assignment but only some reading material. Once you have done reading, pls let me know and I will post Assignment 5 next. Cassiopeia talk 09:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Mam, I have finished my reading assignment. Fade258 (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2021 (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: We deny recognition to trolls and vandals because they want attention and that is their main goal, by not giving attention towards the user they may stop. Fade258 (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

. good. The main point/goal of the trolls is that they want attention. We dont feed them and dont get mad by denying them the recognition that they seek is critical to countering them. Cassiopeia talk 00:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: A good faith editor will be annoyed because you reverted and will state a good reason and it is over quickly or they may ask with politely, "Hi. I would like to ask you why you reverted my edit as I thought it was a good faith edit. A troll will vandalise your user page or ask you in a mean way. Fade258 (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

. 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 00:47, 5 October 2021 (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 Wikimedia Foundation (via emergency@wikimedia.org) and an administrator (privately). I should include the following details in my message:

The page where it was posted
The user
The time and few more. Fade258 (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 00:47, 5 October 2021 (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 should ask an administrator to help since better to be safe then sorry. Fade258 (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

. It may seem to me to be an empty threat but we would still report it to - emergency@wikimedia.org. Cassiopeia talk 00:47, 5 October 2021 (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: Given answers is for 2 types questions:

For 1st type:

Logging out of existing account and vandalizing as an IP address.
Creating new user account for block or sanction evasion.
Using of another person's user account or sharing an account (usually called Piggybacking).
Using of an old account.
Getting some one else to create an accounts to support you in a dispute (usually called Meatpuppetry).

For 2nd type:

To report it, go to WP:SPI. Fade258 (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 00:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fade258, See assignment 5 above. Cassiopeia talk 10:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Mam, I have completed my assignment and submitted it for review. Fade258 (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fade258, see comments above and let me know if you have any questions. Cassiopeia talk 00:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Sorry Mam for late response. No questions on this assignment. Iam ready to move forward if you think. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2021 (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. Done

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

Answer: If there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, a page should be semi-protected. Fade258 (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

. Semi-protection applies to pages that constantly attract a large amount of vandalism by many users. Cassiopeia talk 07:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

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

: Answer: If there is a vandalism but low and persisent over time, a page be pending changes level 1 protected. Fade258 (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC); Y. Cassiopeia talk 07:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: When there is a high amount of vandalism from extended confirmed accounts, a page should be fully protected. Fade258 (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

fully protected pages can only be edited by admin, thus only a small numbers of pages are fully protected. Cassiopeia talk 07:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: If it is repeatedly being recreated after it has been deleted. This can be either as a result of repeated AfDs, or if it is an attack page, or multiple CSDs, a page be creation protected salted. Fade258 (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

. Pages repeatedly deleted in recent time and recreated. Cassiopeia talk 07:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: Generally, User talk pages are rarely protected. However, if there is severe vandalism or abuse, a user's talk page be semi-protected. Fade258 (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 07:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer i: Priyanka Karki, Requested Extended semi-protection. Fade258 (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

the page was not protected due to the vandalism by only a single editor and not many. The editor who vandalized the page has been blocked - see here-1. Cassiopeia talk 07:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Answer ii: Aanchal Sharma, Requested Temporary semi-protection. Fade258 (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

the page was not protected due to the vandalism by only a single editor and not many - see article history log here-2. Cassiopeia talk 07:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Answer iii: Candice Swanepoel, Requested Temporary Pending changes and Protection granted. Fade258 (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 07:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Answer iv: ‎Aishwarya Rajesh, Requested Temporary semi-protection and Protection granted. Fade258 (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 07:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD. Done

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

Answer: A page should be speedily deleted if it is very obvious which does not belong on Wikipedia. The list of CSD criteria with short introduction are given below:

General:

G1: If a page is pure nonsense

G2: If the page is a test page

G3: If the page is a hoax, or just a page for vandalism

G4: If the page is identical to one deleted via a deletion discussion (this does not include PROD or CSD)

G5: If the page was created by a banned or blocked user, or their sock (the page must have been created after their ban/block)

G6: Technical deletions (i.e. deleting a blank page which is preventing a page move)

G7: If the author requests deletion, either by tagging or blanking with a good faith

G8: If the page is orphaned (i.e. talk pages without a project/article page, subpages with no parent page)

G9: Office actions (WMF actions)

G10: Attack pages (if the page is only meant for harm, or libel)

G11: If the pages is purely unambiguous advertising or promotion of a individual person or a company

G12: Copyright infringements (if the page contains major copyright issues)

G13: If the Drafts have not been edited by human for six months and very little chance of ever being substantially edited again

G14: Creation of unnecessary disambiguation pages

. Cassiopeia talk 07:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Articles:

A1: Articles with no context (subject is unclear)

A2: Articles in another language that already exist on another language's Wikipedia

A3: If the articles are empty espically consists of categories tags or see also section (this should not be used immediately after creation)

A5: Articles that have been moved to another Wikimedia project

A7: Articles about a person that show no reasonable indication of notability (this only includes people, groups, animals, web events)

A9: Articles about a music recording that do not show its notability

A10: Articles that are duplicates of a pre-existing article

A11: Articles that are about inventions that are not notable and created by someone related to the creator (e.g. a word their best friend made up last week)

. Cassiopeia talk 07:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

User pages:

U1: User requested deletion

U2: Userpage for a user that does not exist (User:Cassiopeias258)

U3: Userpage that is primarily a gallery of non-free photos (which are prohibited from use in userpace)

U5: Userpages being used as web hosting platforms. Fade258 (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 07:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

2. Correctly tag four pages for speedy deletion (1 promo, 1 copyvio and 2 can be for any of the criteria) and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below. For COPYVIO pls check the text vs the source by using Earwig Copy detector

Answer i: CSD G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) 30 September 2021 4th log entry, Deletion log and Notified to user. Fade258 (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 07:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Answer ii: CSD G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement) 6 october 2021 14th log entry, Deletion log .Fade258 (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 07:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Answer iii: CSD G7 (Author requests deletion), 30 September 2021 3rd log entry, Deletion log. Fade258 (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 07:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Answer iv: CSD G2 (Test pages), 28 September 2021 1st log entry, Deletion log and Notified to user. Fade258 (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

. You have placed a CSD notification on the editor page but no register of this CSD in your CSD log. If I have missed it, pls let me know. Cassiopeia talk 07:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Mam, I think you have missed it. I had already provided the log information on my answer above. See Speedy Deletion's section at question number 2's answer number iv or you may check again on my CSD log. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 This is your CSD log. Pls provide the the location (#) article (Draft:Nawaraj Karki on your CSD log. Example: Draft:Prena Rai is on September 2021 #2. Cassiopeia talk 09:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Mam, Draft:Nawaraj Karki is on September 2021 #1 where I had already provided on this format 28 September 2021 1st log entry. Fade258 (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 Saw and thank you. Cassiopeia talk 23:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Fade258, See Assignment 6 above. Cassiopeia talk 09:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Mam, Can I take the previous tagged pages of CSD which has been tagged by me from 28 September 2021 onwards. Fade258 (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Fade258, It is recent enough and it was tagged by you so you can provide one (one only). Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 19:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:, Sorry, I didn't understand your last word (so you can provide one). So, I will provide you of deletion log, CSD date and number and CSD tagging entry. Is it ok ? Fade258 (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Fade258, You can use the previous tagged page but one for one of the questions. Cassiopeia talk 01:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Cassiopeia: Mam, I had requested couple of pages for Temporary Semi-protection through WP:RPP but the pages were not protected. Can i take that requested? I think I didn't made any mistake while requesting. Fade258 (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Fade258, pls provide hist diffs of the requests first. (Remember: Always provide hist diff so I can understand and have a look at your questions or issues at hand). Cassiopeia talk 04:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:, I have finished my work and submitted it for review. Please review when you are free Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Fade258, pls provide hist diffs of the requests first here in the communication section (not on the assignment section). (as per your question above). I will have a look at them then will respond and will not be reviewing the assignment until after. Cassiopeia talk 05:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:, Here is the diff1 and Diff2. Fade258 (talk) 07:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 Thank you for providing the hist diffs. What made you think the pages need protection? Pls explain in details. Cassiopeia talk 07:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Mam, I think it should be protected temporary for a while because vandalic and disruptive edits were made by IP address and autoconfirmed users respectively. Fade258 (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 Please read protection policy again especially "Vandalism" section and tell me why the pages you nominated for protection were not done. Cassiopeia talk 09:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Mam, Sorry for my late response because I am busy in our big festival Bijaya Dashami. I think that pages were not protected beacuse vandalism or disruption edits were not clear and not done by multiple users or IP at a frequency or continuously which requires to stop it. Fade258 (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Mam, I have completed my assignment and submitted it for review. Fade258 (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Fade258 see review above. You have answered the question regarding page protection. Page protection will only be nominated and grated provided if the page has been vandalized/disrupt/edit warning by multiple (many editors). If only one or two editor vandalized the page, then we place warning messages on the involved editors, if the involved editors continues to vandalism the page after the final warnings, then we would report the involved editors to AIV and they would be blocked from editing. Note: English Wikipedia counter vandalism system is a flexible system, it means we don't need to start from level 1 warning but we could give level 2 or 3 if the edit is particularly/extremely bad in terms of using extreme hate speech/profanity/racial slur, death threats etc. Sorry for taking a little longer than usual to review the assignment. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 07:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Mam, Thanks for reviewing it. Yes, it is. From next time I will follow your instructions regarding vandalic edits and warning the user. Don't say sorry for that. It is your responsibility to talk more with your students regarding their work which helps them to gain knowledge and rectifying their mistake. No questions on this assignment and I am ready to move on next assignment. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2021 (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: This username may be impersonating a famous person like Dean Johnson, Dwayne Johnson or someone else. I didn't see any problem as long as they don't try to impersonate any identifiable person. I would not take any action for this username in particular unless the edits shown are clearly trying to impersonate somebody. In that case, I would report it to WP:UAA. Fade258 (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 01:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Answer: This is a promotional username and implies shared use, since it is presumably the name of an organization or any organization which provides services on health sector. I generally evaluate whether to go to UAA based on their editing, if they're creating promotional pages regarding on this topic. I will go to UAA. Fade258 (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 01:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Answer: This is a offensive or disruption username which violates Username Policy.

Report straight to WP:UAA. Fade258 (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 01:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Answer: This is a promotional username. If we look at the staff at the end it might be misleading. If he/she acting in a good faith, then I would ask them to change their username. Otherwise, report it to UAA. Fade258 (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 01:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Answer: This username is confusing where it represents Wikipedia signature sign off symbol.

Report it to WP:UAA. Fade258 (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it. Cassiopeia talk 01:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Answer: With the combination of numbers it is an IP address where username cannot be IP addresses. This type of username confuse other users, whether it is IP address or username.

Report to WP:UAA. Fade258 (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it. Cassiopeia talk 01:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Answer: This is a disruptive username and BLP violation beacuse it insults Justin Bieber or someone else with the name Bieber.

It should be reported to WP:UAA. Fade258 (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 01:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Fade258, See Assignment 7 above. Cassiopeia talk 09:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Mam, I have completed my assignment and submitted it for review. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Fade258, See comments above. Cassiopeia talk 01:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Progress test

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

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

Scenario 1

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

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

Answer: I would consider this as a vandalism. Since, It is intentionally trying to disrupt Wikipedia by adding negative BLP content. Fade258 (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)