User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Kj cheetham

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/Kj cheetham.

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 enabled Twinkle. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism

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

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

Answer: Good faith edits are done by well-meaning editors, with the intention of adding useful information, but are typically inexperienced with Wikipedia policies and the manual of style.

. 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) 13:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Vandals specifically intend to cause damage, either by adding inappropriate content, making subtle changes, or removing otherwise suitable content.

To tell them apart, need to try and understand the intent, and need to look at the edit itself, not just the edit summary. The level of experience and other recent edits by the editor may give clues.'

. The key here is "intention". If an editor intends to help Wikipedia, and the edit is considered disruptive, they are still considered a "good faith" editor especially the new editor does not aware their edits are disruptive. Vandalism is a "deliberate attempt" to harm Wikipedia. Editor might edit adds incorrect or unsourced information and this does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal; the key is their "intention". Cassiopeia^(talk) 13:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer:

(1) [1] Adding a new section, but not adding any actual content.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 13:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(2) [2] Well meaning, but unreferenced and in the wrong place.

. It was un unsourced edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 13:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(3) [3] Attempt at a 'sweet' gesture, but not appropriate for Wikipedia.

This is the first edit by the new editor; however, it is NOT a test edit. The editor have good intention but does not know the wikipedia guidelines. If the editor continues to edit in the same fashion after they have informed not to do so or the edit is made by an experience editor, we would take it as either a disruptive edit/unsourced edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 13:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(4) [4] An extra example in case the others aren't suitable - this one is someone adding a photo, but it's of the previous building, not the current building.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 13:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

vandalism

Answer:

(1) [5] No intention of the editor to add useful information.

. The editor added unsourced false information. (As per the article it indicates "According to the 2011 census, 45.7% of the population was white" which indicates the "intention of the editor" is to harm Wikipedia page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 13:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(2) [6] Intentionally removed data and replaced with obviously incorrect value.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 13:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(3) [7] Added a lot of material that is nothing to do with the article.

. We usually dont welcome the editor if they vandalised the page but place vandal1 templates (Assignment 2 and 3). Cassiopeia^(talk) 13:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham 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. Pls provide "all" hist diffs (revert diff, report diff, deletion diff, talk page diff and etc.) on your assignment Welcome to CVUA. Ping me here when you are done and ready for review. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham Hi, havent seen you work on the assignment apart from one of the questions. Do you need any help? If you are busy in your personal life at the moment, then pls let me know. Thank you and stay safe. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, it's still on my todo list. :) I've been collecting some examples for the questions though already, and will fill some in later on today. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham No worries and thank you for your quick reply. "Ping" me when you have finished the assignment. Best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Done. Many thanks, -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham See comments above. Btw you can add your answers in piece meal next time. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 13:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thank you for the comments. I'm ready to move on. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

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

Please answer the following questions

Answer: Warnings are done to inform editors that there actions weren't appropriate. They can be especially helpful to newer editors to inform them about revalent policies which they may not have been aware of. They may also reduce the activities of vandals if they see their actions are being noticed.

Good. 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) 10:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Answer: As it's a level 4 warning, it would be used in the more serious situations, when a disruptive editor only has one more chance before potentially being blocked by an admin.

. 4im is only for widespread and particularly egregious vandalism such as vandalism only account and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Answer: As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_warnings/Usage_and_layout#Always_subst_the_template all warning templates should be substituted in case their text changes in the future. This is done by using the "subst:" prefix in front of the template name within the tag.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Answer: They should be reported to the noticeboard at WP:AIV.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Answer i: Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

For very subtle vandalism, which is borderline a good faith edit.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

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

For repeated instances of page blanking.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

For serious personal attacks on other editors.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Kj_cheetham 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) 13:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Done. Thank you, -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Kj_cheetham, See comments above and let me know ifyou have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thank you, it seemed to be straightforward to me. I'm happy to move on. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Tools

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

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

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

Twinkle

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

User creation log

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

Rollback

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

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)	[8]	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 [9] 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 [10]
Example 2	WP:NPOV	[11]	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	List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN [12]	Included a small bit of HTML. Level 1 warning: {{subst:uw-test1}}	N. This is not the first nor the second edits by the editor - see editor contribution log here. It might be a different editor but we would not know and we indentify the IP/registered account inregarless who is behind the screen and thus that is reason to have security as a registered user since we need a password to log in. If in any case a registered user didnt log out and one of the family member or friend edit Wikipedia using their account, we still identify the edit is made by the registered user. See notes section for test edit explanation. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
2	Test edit	Existence of God [13]	Just added some extra dots. The only change this IP has ever done. Left welcome message with note about testing: {{subst:welcome-anon-test}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
3	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	MSN [14]	Various acts of vandalism done by this account, I reverted some. Left a level 2 caution, and later a level 4 final warning (as others left level 1 and 3 warnings). All their edits seemed to be vandalism. Reported to AIV [15]. Range blocked: [16].	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
4	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	I-Land [17]	Repeated large unwarranted changes to content and edit warring with another editor. Looking back WP:3RR may also come into play. Left {{subst:uw-ew}} and then later {{subst:uw-vandalism4}}. Didn't actually report to AIV in the end, as noticed they had seemed to be using multiple account, so instead reported at WP:SPI: [18]. Sock accounts all were then blocked.	Y I take it as a tick even this is a SPI report and not a AIV report as you have provide another "report to AIV" on Q16. We do cover SPI in later chapter but there is not SPI report as it is a little harder for CUVA participant to find one. However. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
5	WP:NPOV	Black Pride [19]	Very biased point of view. Left a caution: {{subst:Uw-vandalism2}}. Perhaps a better choice would have been {{subst:uw-npov2}} though.	Y This is a judgmental call here. I would take it as vandalism more so than NPOV. NPOV usually is to using WP:PUFFERY enhance or reduce the subject appearance, achievements, merit and etc. Such as "XXX team dominated and smashed YYY team last night" instead just saying " XXX team won the match over YYY team with the scoreboard of 48-30." or " ZZZ is the most beautiful Indian actress in the world" instead just stating "ZZZ is an Indian actress". Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
6	WP:NPOV	Kamla Persad-Bissessar [20]	Not neutral comments, also unsourced, perhaps original research too. This IP has only ever edited this article. Left level 2 caution: {{subst:uw-npov2}}	N It is a vandalism edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
7	WP:SPAM	Kiefer Sutherland [21]	Added link to a website that wasn't relavent. Added level 1 warning.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
8	Talking on the article	Sanskrit [22]	Left a comment on the article page expressing their opinion. Left notice: {{subst:uw-talkinarticle}}	N it is a vandalism edit. Talking on the article example would be " I am so bored, pls come to my talk page and have a chat" or "I am telling not to enroll to my highschool." etc. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
9	Unsourced	List of Pokémon the Series: Sun & Moon – Ultra Legends episodes [23]	Reverted, left level 1 warning as assumed a bit of good faith and was their only edit: {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
10	Silly vandalism	Mercedes-Benz [24]	Made 4 obviously unconstructive edits. Appears to be the only vanadalism, and no prior warnings. Reverted, and left a level 2 warning: {{subst:Uw-vandalism2}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
11	Silly vandalism	Foodfight! [25]	This IPs only edits this year, but looks like some mild vandalism in the past too. Level 2 warning: {{subst:Uw-vandalism2}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
12	Unsourced	Duffield, Virginia [26]	Although at first glance looked like a good faith edit, seems that user has tried to change the numbers several times. Level 2 warning: {{subst:uw-unsourced2}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
13	Silly vandalism	List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters [27]	Obviously no good faith in this edit, with misleading edit summary. Left level 2 warning: {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
14	Personal attack	Conway, South Carolina [28]	In response to another editor reverting their initial mild vandalism, they then left this attack. Level 2 warning: {{subst:uw-npa2}}	Y. Usually personal attack would be a little bit more direct such as leave a message on editor's talk page and adding all the 4 letter words of that sort. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
15	Section blanking	Global Financial Centres Index [29]	Their first and only edit, so assumed a bit of good faith. Just a level 1 warning: {{subst:uw-blank1}}	Y. Btw -do note, removal of "unsourced" content is allowed for content should be supported by source - see WP:PROVEIT.08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
16	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	Tim Noah [30]	Obvious vandalism. Account only exists to vandalism that article it seems. Left level 4 warning as account already had multiple warnings: {{subst:uw-vandalism4}}, then reported to AIV: [31] Account blocked for 3 days.	Y. Good work. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
17	Test edit	HTTP 404 [32]	IP only ever made a single edit, with nonsense edit summary. Added unrelated ref and other characters into a heading. Left level 1 warning: {{subst:uw-test1}}	Y. I think the editor just copy the texts from somewhere and add it in the page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
18	NPOV	Morrissey [33]	Added non-neutral content such as "He is also the best ever.". Left left 1 warning as not many edits so far from this IP: {{subst:uw-npov1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham Good day. If Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. At the moment STiki is not working. Pls provide article name, hist diffs, editor talk page where you place the warning message, reports hist diffs and any links that is applicable. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham Hi, I think you still have some questions to answer, pls let me know if you need any assistance. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi there. Ah sorry I'd thought I'd already finished this, but seems not! I'll get back to working on it shortly. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I've still not reported anything to AIV, or encountered talking on an article page yet... I hope the others are okay so far. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham Good day. On Fri, Sat nights (US time - and stay for 2 hours in Wikipedia) where Wikipedia traffic is particularly heavy, you will find many vandalism edits and you would able to find editors an AIV report is warrant. You might want to check UFC Fight Night: Lewis vs. Oleinik from 4pm to 6pm (US Pacific time) which you would find vandalism edits and possibility to report an AIV. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thank you for the tip! Not sure when I'll be able to be online yet, but I've added that page to my Watchlist. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I think I've done them all now. I have been doing some other anti-vandal reverts too, beyond those listed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi, I've added an extra one at the end with another AIV report as an example, I hope that's okay. Please could you review them, thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham, see comment above and "Notes" section below. Kindly complete additional Q17 and Q18 and ping me when you have completed them. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi, I hope you are well. I've added another two, so please could you take a look. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham, See review above. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia That's great, thank you. I'm ready to move on. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Shared IP tagging

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Kj cheetham, 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. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi, I've now read through those and ready to move on. Thank you, -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users

Harassment and trolling

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

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Answer: They are often attention-seeking, so if they are sufficiently ignored (but need to still repair the vandalism, if not immediately) it is hoped they'll "go away" and lose interest. On the other hand, too much attention may make them infamous and encourage further copycats.

. If editor asks questions, we should reply but in a mechanical way and not engaging in their troll behaviour, repeating the same mechanical answer if needed. The main point/goal of the trolls is that they want attention. We dont feed them and dont get mad by denying them the recognition that they seek is critical to countering them. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: A good faith user is more likely to be polite and civil (but might nonetheless be stressed/annoyed), where a troll is more likely to resort to personal attacks with the intention of being annoying and/or provocative.

. Sometimes good faith editors would get upset/annoyed as well and convey their message which might not be pleasant for your standard. Many times troll might not use personal attacks but being rude, condescending, put down, name calling and etc. To check on the editors past edits/talk page would help; however, the bottom line is that trolls want to annoy you and good faith editors annoyed at you and that is the subtle different. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Emergencies

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

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

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

Answer:Email emergency @ wikimedia.org or go to Special:EmailUser/Emergency, including a diff or at least the location of the threat. Also contact an admin via a low-traffic means, such as email or IRC, not on a very public noticeboard.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer:Treat all claims seriously, users are not trained to distinguish between real threats and jokes, report as above.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sock pupperty

Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and answer the question below

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

Answer: Sock pupptery can be using multiple accounts (or IPs) to validate your own point and give the impression of support from others, or evade blocks/bans. Or it might be convincing other users to do your bidding (meatpuppetry). Other signs are listed at WP:SIGNS.

Report to WP:SPI. WP:PRIVACY also needs to be respected when reporting.

Example of a previous report I made: [34]

. Good work.

Sock puppetry takes various forms, depending on the sockpuppeteer :

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

Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kj cheetham, see Assignment 5 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia. All done, please could you review it, thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kj cheetham, See review above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion

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

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

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

Answer: As per WP:SEMIGUIDE, it is used when there is a large amount of vandalism from new or IP users, such as on articles that concern something recently in the media. Also prevents such users from edit warring, or using newly created sock puppets.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Pending changes protection is an alternative to semi-protection. Used after vandalism has already occured, where vandalism is persistent. But given many edit may need approving, should not be used for pages being editted frequently. As per WP:ORANGELOCK, level 2 is no longer used.

. When the vandalism is persistent but low in volumn over a period of time (few days to few weeks). Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Pages are fully protected when there is a very high level of vandalism or edit warring with many editors involved, and is typically only done for a short period of time. Extremely high profiles pages are fully protected permanently, like the Wikipedia main page.

. Fully protected is rare and only admins can edit the page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: When a page has been repeatedly recreated after it's been deleted, e.g. Draft:John Tauras, or has been pre-emptively blacklisted as per MediaWiki:Titleblacklist.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Only the most severe vandalism, and only for short periods of time. Not usually done.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 1: Bhavans Vidya Mandir, Elamakkara - requested semi protection [35]. Outcome was multiple IPs blocked, rather than page protection. [36]

. The two editors vandalised the page on Sep 5, 2020 were not block actually. I am not sure why the admin stated that. If only two editors vandalise the same page, we usually would just placed warning message on their talk page, if, as a rule of thumb, 4 or above editors vandalise a page when we report the page to RPP. Pls find another page for RPP. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer again:

Looked to me like two of the vandals were blocked at least: [37] and [38].

The formal was blocked but I cant see anywhere the later is blocked. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

New answer: Liu Yifei - requested temp semi protection [39]. Granted for 2 weeks [40]

. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: Rodrigo De Paul - requested semi protection [41]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:18, 5 September 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: Only uncontroversial pages that need obviously need deleting, that do no warrant discussion, and only if it's previous revisions also don't warrant saving.

. Pls answer again by listing the CSD# in in brief description in your own words. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer again:

For example, for CSD G4 (which I used in answer 2.2), it's for when an article is deleted, for instance at WP:AFD, but the creator simply recreated almost the same article again, perhaps multiple times, even if they changed the title.

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

Answer 1 Criteria ? : C1 - db-catempty

Category:Writers about Derbyshire - [42]

Pls provide article in mainspace or in draft.

Answer again: G8 - db-redirnone

Straight-10 - didn't note down the diff before it was deleted, but item is logged under September 2020 at User:Kj_cheetham/CSD_log.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2 Criteria ? : G4 - db-repost

Pradeep Ranganathan - didn't note down the diff before it was deleted, but item is logged under September 2020 at User:Kj_cheetham/CSD_log.

. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kj cheetham, see Assignment 6 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia I've now done these, please could you review them, thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham, See review above and pls anwer again for question 6 (RPP), question 1 in Speedy deletion and CSD 2.1. Let me know if you need any assistance. Stay same and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thank you. To confirm, for Speedy deletion question 1, do you want me to list ALL the CSD #s (as there are a lot), or just a few of them, say 10? -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham, I just need one - the most recent one. Cassiopeia^(talk) 13:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I've done the corrections I think. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham See comments above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:25, 9 September 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: Possible Misleading username. Would need to investigate further, as Johnson is a fairly common surname, this could be their real name. It's okay as long as they aren't impersonating someone, like Dwayne Johnson, if similar to another username might need to make it clear, as per WP:IMPERSONATE.

as long as the user doesnt impersonate any known subject, it is not violating the guidelines then do nothing. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer: Promotional username. Both promotional as per WP:ORGNAME, and implies shared use, as per WP:ISU. Would leave {{subst:uw-coi-username}} on their talk page, or potentially even report to WP:UAA.

.This breaches of promotional usernames and should be reported to WP:UAA if they makes medical centre page in a promotional way. If they were making innocent edits they should be advised just to change the username using {{subst:Uw-username|Reason}}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer: Promotional username. Similar to previous answer, but perhaps slightly less blatant. Depends if Coles is an organisation, and if it's "staff" as in an employee, or a walking stick. Need to look into how promotional the account it being, but at least leave a {{subst:uw-coi-username}}.

Write to the user and brief him/her about Wikipedia username policy and advise him/her to change the username should the user edits are constructive and not violate NPV. (b)If the user edits is aimed to advertise and promote Coles then report it to WP:UAA. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer: Misleading username. This usually represents a signature, misleading as per WP:MISLEADNAME, but I assume Wikipedia blocks this specific one already.

. Nowadays, these types of usernames are automatically disallowed, so you won't stumble across them. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer: Misleading username. This looks like an IP address, but may not be the actual IP address. Should be reported to WP:UAA if found.

. Nowadays, these types of usernames are automatically disallowed, so you won't stumble across them. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer: Offensive usernames. Assuming it refers to Justin Bieber as the most famous Bieber, it's potential libel against a living person. Report to WP:UAA if found.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham, See Assignment 7 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Done, thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham, See comments above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:01, 9 September 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: Assuming it is unsourced, it would be vandalism, and potentially libel.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

Answer: WP:UNSOURCED and WP:BLP, in particular WP:BLPREMOVE

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{subst:uw-biog1}} if it's their first warning, or a higher level if they've been warned before recently.

. or {{subst:vandalism1}}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:37, 10 September 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, as not gone beyond 3 times. However under WP:3RRBLP clause 7 there is scope for going beyond as it's "removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced", though might be best to report on an admin noticeboard.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{IPvandal}} as it's an IP.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: IP user vandalising BLP (Justin Bieber) after repeated warnings.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:37, 10 September 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: Good faith, test edit, as it's a new account and likely their first edit. If they have made a lot of edits, then it could be vandalism.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{subst:uw-test1}} for first edit.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:37, 10 September 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 (Green) or Rollback (Blue)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:37, 10 September 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, should leave a level 4 warning before reporting.

. Report if and only if it is considered vandalized only account with extremely office edits. However, it will up to admin to decide if a block is warrant. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes, especially if the account is only used for vandalism.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{vandal}} as it's not an IP.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Repeated vandalism after 4th warning.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:37, 10 September 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: Yes, Rollback-Vandal (Red), or potentially just "Undo" if it's a single edit.

.they are trying to promote themselves. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

Answer: {{subst:uw-advert1}} or a higher level version, depending on existing warnings and number of edits made.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:37, 10 September 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, CSD G11, {{subst:Db-promo}}

. good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes, {{subst:uw-coi-username|Laptops Inc}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Potentially yes. Promotional name, with evidence of it being used for promotion. However would give the user chance to change their username first if leaving the template on their talk page.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham, See Assignment 8 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Now completed, thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham, Good work. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thank you! -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:42, 10 September 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: Very obvious vandalism that doesn't need explaining, on your own user page, edits in defiance of a ban, or by a malfunctioning bot where no explanation is needed.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer may not be used: Good faith edits, or when you want to leave a personalised edit summary.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?

Answer: Manually revert, with a note saying it was accidental.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: No, it normally automately generates a summary of the form "Reverted edits by User A to last version by User B", so not able to give an explanation.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham, See assignment 9 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Done, thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham, Reviewed. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:35, 11 September 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.

Kj cheetham, Greeting. The next phase of this course is Assignment 10 - "monitoring period", see above. Cheers. Pls make about 30 counter vandalism edits so I may check. Final exam will follows after the monitoring period. Do raise any questions if you have any and do read the Notes section below. Stay safe and thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, I hope you are well. I think it's been a week now, but I admit I've not been counting my counter vandalism edits. I'm sure must be at least 30 by now. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Notes

Ppending page protection - (low volume but consistent over a period of time (days to weeks) that means you need to check the articles's history log page
(3RR) - Do note you need to warn the involved editor on their talk pages first after the have made their 3 revert on the same article within 24 hour which deemed edit warring with another involved editor(s). If the any of the involved makes the 4th revert then you can report them. When reporting you need to provide the hist diffs and some reason.
For (copyvio) - you can check on the New Pages Feed) and look for articles in either New Page Patrol or Article for Creation. Use [https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ Earwig's Copyvio Detector to see if the articles violate copyvio (make sure only report if the copyvio percentage is high and the content is NOT taken from public domain (free to use) sites. So you need to check if the sites are copyright). All proper nouns, document, event name and etc are not considered copyvio. Between New Page Patrol or Article for Creation, you can find much higher changes of articles violate copyvio in Article for Creation section.

Final Exam

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (15%)

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

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

Answer 1: If first warning, and if one of their first edits, would assume good faith test edit, revert, then add {{subst:uw-test1}} to their talk page. If they were a more experienced editor, I would instead use {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: If they already had warnings, would again revert and use the test edit or vandalism tags as Answer 1, but an an appropriately higher level, depending on number of recent previous warnings. If already had 4 recent warnings, would report to WP:AIV.

. {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 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: Revert with a comment about it in edit summary, then add a note to their talk page reminding them, without using a template.

Personal communication is always good; however warning of the edit has been placed prior the user did it again - use vandalism warnings

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. as there is only one level of

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article? Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. . Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 4: If they repeated kept on doing it, I would intrepret it as vandalism, revert with a comment, and use {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} or a higher level as appropriate.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 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: If one of their first edits, would assume good faith, revert, then add {{subst:uw-test1}} to their talk page. If they were a more experienced editor, I would instead use {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}. If it was an article or section about someone called John Smith, would instead use {{subst:uw-npov1}}.

adding "John Smith is the best" is not an test edit. Test edit is an edit where by the new editor "make an edit to see they actually can make an edit in Wikipedia". "John Smith is the best" is a statement which the "intention" of the editor would like to express/record in the article. If the user named John Smith or the page is not about John Smith then used vandal 1. However, if the page is about John Smith then it would be

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. . Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 6: For repeated occurances, use higher levels of warnings, such as {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} or {{subst:uw-npov2}}. If kept occuring after 4 warnings, report to WP:ANI as a behavioral problem.

use vandal template and report to WP:AIV. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: As with Answer 1, if one of their first edits, would assume good faith test edit, revert, then add {{subst:uw-test1}} to their talk page. If they were a more experienced editor, I would instead use {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 8: As with Answer 2, would again revert and use the test edit or vandalism tags, but an an appropriately higher level, depending on number of recent previous warnings. If already had 4 recent warnings, would report to WP:AIV.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 9: If no other recent warnings, revert and tag talk page with {{subst:uw-delete1}}.

. We first need to check if the source match the content claim. If they matches then use {{subst:uw-delete1}}. If not then do nothing. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 10: If repeated, increase warning level, e.g. {{subst:uw-delete2}}, then {{subst:uw-delete3}}, then finally {{subst:uw-delete4}}. Report to WP:AIV if continues after 4 warnings. If it is always on the same article on the same day, would instead consider using {{subst:uw-ew}} or {{subst:uw-3rr}}.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 11: If the user is more experienced, rather than using templates I would post a personalised message on their talk page asking to explain themself, as per WP:DTTR.

{{tick}]. History and behaviors of the editor does provide some indication; however, if the removing of the edits are well-sourced and the editor keep on removing them after a few warning, we will treat their edits as vandalism. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 12: Assuming it was the whole article, and no previous warnings, revert and leave them a {{subst:uw-blank1}}. I would then look at the article myself and add appropriate tags to say that more sources are needed, or potentially mark it for speedy deletion. If it is a bio, then WP:BLPPROD is appropriate.

. If it is a section or a paragraph unsourced content, do nothing, as unsourced content can be removed for not adhere to WP:PROVEIT guidelines. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 13: The IP user might be correct in that it's not relavent, so I may just leave it alone.

. Always check the source and statement removed by the editor, if they had removed a properly sourced piece of information then give them a {{subst:uw-delete1}}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 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: Report to emergency @ wikimedia.org or via Special:EmailUser/Emergency, including a diff. Also contact an admin via a low-traffic means if possible, such as by email or IRC.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 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 answer 14, as it's a physical threat.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 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: {{subst:uw-blank1}} or higher level if previous recent warnings

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 2: {{subst:uw-attempt1}} or higher level if previous recent warnings

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 3: {{subst:uw-efsummary}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} or higher level if previous recent warnings, as the article isn't about someone called Chris

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 5: {{subst:uw-delete1}} or higher level if previous recent warnings

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

Answer 6: {{subst:uw-test1}} or higher level if previous recent warnings

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} or {{subst:uw-npov1}} (assuming refers to Tim Henman rather than name of the user) or higher level if previous recent warnings

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 8: {{subst:uw-biog1}} or higher level if previous recent warnings

. or {Tlsubst|uw-vandalism1}} Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 9: {{subst:uw-blank4im}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: Report to WP:AIV

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 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: {{subst:uw-upv}}, and possibly take to WP:AIN as it's a behavior problem

. Do let them know there is an ANI incident report about them using {{subst:ANI-notice}} on their talk page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 12: {{subst:uw-image1}} or higher level if previous recent warnings

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 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: {{subst:uw-upv}}

. Revert it and report user to WP:AIV/WP:ANI as "calling an editor Nazi" is considered personal attack. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

14. A user adds "Italic text to Sydney

Answer 14: {{subst:uw-test1}} or {{subst:uw-mos1}} or higher level if previous recent warnings

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: {{subst:uw-biog1}} or higher level if previous recent warnings

It is a vandalism edit. {Tlsubst|uw-vandalism2}} or {Tlsubst|uw-vandalism3}}

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	[43]	Random characters, first edit, obvious test edit - [44]	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
17	Test edit	[45]	First edit, seemingly random characters added - [46]	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
18	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[47]	Level 4 warning, as already had various other warnings in recent weeks - [48]. Further edits, so reported to AIV - [49]. Blocked for 1 month - [50]	Y. Good work. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
19	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[51]	Continuing past level 4 warning, so reported to AIV - [52]. Blocked for 31 hours - [53]	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
20	WP:NPOV	[54]	Level 2 warning, as already had a couple of level 1 warnings - [55]	Y. Well-done. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
21	WP:Fringe theories	[56]	Not entirely sure this counts as a fringe theory - [57]	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
22	WP:SPAM	[58]	IP user first edit was to add a website link - [59]	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
23	Talking on the article	[60]	Users first edit, but didn't seem to just be a test edit - [61]	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
24	Unsourced	[62]	No source included - [63]	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
25	Removing maintenance templates	[64]	Removed "orphan" and "notabilty" templates with addressing either of the issues - [65]	Y The page has been deleted, for such I cant view the edit. I will take it as a check. If the template is an "AfD" or "CSD" template which the editor is the creator then that is a vandaslim act and we give vandalism template warning. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
26	Removal of content	[66]	Removed paragraph of text. Seemed more than just a test edit - [67]	Y. that is the WP:LEAD section where the info is supported by sources on the body text sections. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
27	Silly vandalism	[68]	Level 2 warning, as recently had a level 1 warning - [69]	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
28	Vandalism	[70]	Level 2 warning, as recently had a level 1 warning - [71]. This IP user ended up also getting level 3 and 4 warnings from me, before someone else reported them to AIV and they were then blocked.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
29	Non-english	[72]	IP user first edit, so could have been a test edit, but it looked like Portguese text - [73]	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
30	Blanking	[74]	First edit, but removed a large section, so not just a test edit - [75]	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 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: G11 {{Db-promo}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

Answer 2: A7 {{Db-person}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

3. Joe goes to England and comes home !

Answer 3: A1 {{Db-nocontext}}

. or CSD A7 No indication of importance (person) {{Db-person}}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: G3 {{Db-hoax}} (I don't believe a Smadoodle is an animal.)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

5. Fuck Wiki!

Answer 5: G10 {{Db-attackorg}}

. or CSD G3 Vandalism {{Db-vandalism}} Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

What would you do in the following circumstance:

6. A user blanks a page they very recently created

Answer 6: Tag G7 {{Db-blanked}}

. You also can send a message to the editor to confirm his action was meant to delete the page they created. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: Ask for further information on the authors talk page, and perhaps revert their tag (depending on what recent edit summaries said).

. Restore the CSD tag then warn the user for removing it using {{subst:uw-speedy1}}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 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: Revert, then tag their user page with {{Uw-afd1}} and specify the article.

{{tick}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 9: As Answer 8, but higher level warnings. Report to WP:AIV if already warned 4 times.

{{tick}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: Tag G13 {{Db-blanked}}, or {{promising draft}} if the draft looks very good. Perhaps leave a message on the authors talk page as a reminder too.

{{tick}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 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: If they have been editing an article with a similar name, report to WP:UAA, else would leave {{uw-coi-username}} on talk page.

. If no such article existed they should still be asked to change username as it implies shared use (the word band in the name). Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

2. Poopbubbles

Answer 2: Not a direct violation, but would check their recent edits to see if it's being used for vandalism.

. Do wait and see what their edits were like before taking it up with WP:AIV if they were a vandalism only account. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

3. Brian's Bot

Answer 3: Check if it actually appears to be a bot, if not it is a misleading username and would leave {{uw-username}} on user's talk page with a note explaining this. Report to WP:UAA if they ignored it.

. Do check their user page first so see if this isn't a legitimate bot account under the WP:bot policy first. Cassiopeia^(talk)

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

Answer 4: Doesn't technically violate policy, so would leave alone.

. No a violation of user name policy but would encourage them to change the user name. Do pay attention to their edit log and see any vandalism acts been made. If so, report them accordingly.08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

5. Bobsysop

Answer 5: If not a sysop, report to WP:UAA as misleading username.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

6. 12, 23 June 2012

Answer 6: Report to WP:UAA as misleading username, as it looks like a date.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

7. PMiller

Answer 7: Likely to be someone's real name, so would leave alone after checking if they are not editing an article with a similar name.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

8. OfficialJustinBieber

Answer 8: Report to WP:UAA as misleading username.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

9. The Dark Lord of Wiki

Answer 9: Leave it alone, not a violation.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

10. I love you

Answer 10: Leave it alone, not a violation.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 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: No, as per WP:EDITWAR. Obvious vandalism reverting is also exempt from WP:3RR.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 2: Report to WP:AIV using {{vandal}} or {{IPvandal}} templates outlined on that page, or using the ARV function in Twinkle.

. And state "vandalism only account" and/or provide hist diffs. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

Answer 3: Report to WP:ANI with diff and brief details, and tag editors talk page with {{subst:ANI-notice}}.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: Report to WP:UAA using {{user-uaa}} template, or using ARV function in Twinkle.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 5: Report to WP:ANI with diff and brief details, and tag editors talk page with {{subst:ANI-notice}}.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 6: Report to WP:AN3 with diff and brief details, and tag editors talk page with {{subst:An3-notice}}.

. Make sure a template of edit warring is place on invovled editor(s) and if they continue to edit warring after the the edit warring is placed on their talk page then report to AN3. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: Report to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and tag article talk page with {{BLP noticeboard}}.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 8: Report to WP:SPI, open investigating by stating suspected sockmaster, then list suspected sockpuppet acounts and provide evidence (e.g. diffs).

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 9: Report to WP:RPP and follow the instructions on the page, or using RPP function in Twinkle.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: Warn using {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their talk page. If persists, report to WP:AN3 with diff and brief details, and tag editors talk page with {{subst:An3-notice}}.

. Need to place 3RR template on their talk page first and the if they edit the after that within 24 hours on the same article then report them . Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 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: Requested semi - Ministry of Home Affairs (India) - [76]. Semi-proected for 3 months - [77].

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: Requested pending - Lonnie Johnson (inventor) - [78]. Semi-protected for 2 weeks - [79].

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 3: Requested semi - Jomo Kenyatta - [80]. Semi-protected for 3 days - [81].

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 4: Requested pending - Don Lemon - [82]. Semi-protected for 1 year - [83].

.Good work. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 5: Requested semi - Odsonne Édouard - [84]. Semi-protected for 1 month - [85].

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:56, 6 October 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: Good faith edit - adding a website, but not appropriate for Wikipedia - [86]. Added level 1 general note [87].

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 7: Self-revert - Arms control [88] - Added level 1 general note [89]. (Though they did also change a word as well.)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 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:

no answers given. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 9:

no answers given. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 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: Zerion.net [90]. Number 62 on my CSD log for September.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 11 copyvio violation: Applications of sensitivity analysis to the social sciences. Number 35 on my CSD log for July. From back in July, so not sure if it counts.

. Half point. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 12 copyvio violation: ISO/IEC 4909. Number 30 on my CSD log for August. From back in August, so not sure if it counts.

. Half point. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 13 Your choice: redirect to non-existant target: ESIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND PGIMSR, K. K. NAGAR, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU [91]. Number 52 on my CSD log for September.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 14 Your choice: not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject: Gilgit Baltistan Medicos Union. Number 3 on my CSD log for October.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: Tombradysmashedhisownson - [92]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 16: Theductlessrangehood - [93]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 17: Dressxpert.pk - [94]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 18: Cyrusgroup - [95]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Techmedias - [96]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 19: As per WP:EDITWAR, it is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making consensus harder to reach.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 20: As per WP:EDITWAR, it occurs when when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 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: They are more likely to affect someone's life, and there may be a need to respect the subject's privacy. Sourcing is critical. It also may open Wikipedia up to cases of WP:LIBEL and associated legal implications.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 22: Remain civil, as per WP:CIVIL, remain calm, and try to remain neutral. If their behavior continues or escalates, report to WP:ANI.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer 23: As per WP:DENY and WP:What is a troll?, it is sometimes best to not give them the recognition they desire, and to not reinforce their behaviour. Getting into an argument with them is often what they want.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 24: Full protection means only admins can edit/move the article, whereas semi-protection only prevents unregistered (IP users) and editors who are not confirmed/autoconfirmed.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 25: Personal attacks can influence people's lives outside of Wikipedia, and may drive good editors away from the Wikipedia platform.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham See Final exam questions above. All the best! Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia. Hope you are well. I think I'm done! I didn't answer part 6, Q8/9 because I haven't come across the need to report for 3RR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham Hi, I will get back to you on the review early next week and at the mean time pls try to find edits that could report 3RR for there are part of the final exam questions. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham I need a block of free time to review the final exam so I would do them this weekend. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi, that's fine, thank you for letting me know. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Final score

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage
1	15	11	15%	11%
2	30	28.5	30%	28.5%
3	10	9	10%	9%
4	10	10	10%	10%
5	10	9	10%	9%
6	25	22	40%	22%
TOTAL	100	89.5	100	89.5%

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 89.5%. 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 Kj cheetham 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. You can request for Wikipedia:Rollback right here and do mention you have passed the CUVA and mention my name in case the admin need to verify. 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) 08:54, 11 October 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.