User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Sophiajoanne

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 the talk page.

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.

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 edit is when a user makes mistakes while doing editing due to things like the lack of understanding of how the Wikipedia works but vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive.

Right. The key here is the "editor's intention". If an editor's intention is to help Wikipedia, and the edit is considered disruptive, they are still considered a "good faith" editor. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia. Do note, editor might edit adds incorrect or unsourced information and this does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal; we have to look at the intention of the editor and sometime we could see from the recent edits. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Please find and explain three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. Pls provide history diff for the example provided.

(1) Good faith and copyright. When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. However, they might be new to the copyright rules on Wikipedia, so they may accidentally make copyright violations. [1] I took this example from my own edit on an article. At that point of time, I wasn't very sure about the copyright policy about Wikipedia, causing me to make the mistake by copying the informations straight from another website.

Do note, only if the user does not know and not been previously warned. If a user repeatedly add WP:COPYVIO content then that would constitution vandalism. Do note Wikipedia takes copyvio very seriously as it entails legal implication. As a guideline, a few words copies from the original works and an idea of expression such as weather the storm are generally acceptable and so is a direct quote of speech. However, any longer phrases which would be expression in a number of ways are copyright protected. To use a few short sentences on a large article generally will considered infringement and they should be deleted from the article and tag {{Copyvio-revdel}} and for large amount of copyvio in newly created page, a tag of CSD#112 (criteria for speedy deletion) (Once of the assignments is CSD, so you would have a chance to read and work on the assignment). To avoid copyright infringement, one needs uses his/her own words to convey the source’s information. Paraphrasing could minimise the the copyright violation. See 2 examples of infriengment below:

1. Audi infringed copyright violation over Eminem’s song “Lose Yourself” in their commercial advertising. [2]

2. Audi was fined US $ 965,000 over copyright infringement for using 10 words from Brian Andreas’s story of “Angel of Mercy” - [3]

CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

(2) Good faith and newcomers. Some newcomers may not be able to understand all the rules on Wikipedia or how the Wikipedia article works when they first started. Hence, they may accidentally make editing mistakes that may violate any rules on Wikipedia. Hence, with some guidance they will be able to understand their mistakes and not repeat them. [4] I again took my example, as I was not as familiar on the format on Wikipedia, hence I did made mistakes like capitalised unnecessary word and not italicised the title of the show.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(3) Some editors might just make an unintended mistake or are testing how the wikicode works. Hence, some changes to the format are not vandalism, but rather either good faith edits of editors who don't know the guidelines or simply a different opinion on how the format should look, in which case it is just a disputed edit. [5] In this example, I was not very sure about the wikicode for the reference name, hence causing me to perform multiple edits on the same wikicode before I got the correct one.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(1) Silly vandalism example by adding profanity, graffiti, or patent nonsense to pages; creating nonsensical and obviously unencyclopedic pages. [6] In this example, a user added an unnecessary edit that does not make sense towards the article.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(2) Avoidant vandalism by removing "afd" , "copyvio" and other related tags or adding 'not suspicious' on the edit summary in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content. [7] On this example, it was stated by the user that he/she was providing more details, but in actual fact, the user actually added unnecessary content onto the article.

No info on removing afd info found. Pls provide hist diff next time. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(3) Hoaxing vandalism. For example, deliberately adding falsities to articles, particularly to biographies of living people, with hoax information. [8] and [9] In this example, a user changed the artist's name on the article from 'Lee Kwang-soo' to a false one which was 'Daniel Lee Kwang-soo' multiple times even after other users attempt to revert them.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne Greetings. See above your first assignment. Please ping me when you have done them for me to review. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne Hi, Just a note you need to provide "history diff" for the 6 questions of good faith and vandalism questions as indicated in the questions above. When yo are don than ping me here. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I would like to ask the "history diff" is it something like what I did for the Vandalism (1)? Sophiajoanne (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne Hi, yes as pre vandalism,m (1). See more info on hist diff here - Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide and Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. Provide the hist diff first then follow by explanation. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm done with the 1st assignment CASSIOPEIA. Please help me check my work if I've made any mistakes. Thank you. Sophiajoanne (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne Hi, See above comments and do let me know if you have any questions. Ping me if you are ready for next assignment. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi CASSIOPEIA I'm ready for my next assignment. Sophiajoanne (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne Hi, Pls see below assignment. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

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

Please answer the following questions

Answer:

We warn users because we should notify them that they've violated a policy or guideline, and that we've reverted their changes and the various user warning templates available are used to simplify the message we wanted to tell the user.

Right. However, more importantly, 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. We could always "add additional info" or use "personal message" if the template message is not specific enough to address the message we would like to convey. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Answer:

4im warning be appropriate when it is assumes bad faith, very strong cease and desist, first and only warning. Generally used in the case of excessive or continuous disruption from a user or specific IP.

For those that less egregious, lower warning level should be used. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Answer:

Yes. It could be substituted by placing subst: before the end of the text "}}" and after the start of the text "{{"

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Answer:

If the user continues to vandalize after a Level 4 warning or Level 4im warning, they should be reported to Administrator intervention against vandalism.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Answer i:

{{Tlsubst|''Uw-disruptive1''}}

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Article, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

This is used when the user made a few changes to the wikipedia article that were distruptive or not useful to the article the first time, hence you give a gentle reminder how to contribute constructively to the wikipedia articles in case if the user is not aware of the rules they have to follow on Wikipedia.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Answer ii:

{{Tlsubst|''Uw-unsourced1''}}

Hello, I'm Sophiajoanne. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

This is used when the user added content into the wikipedia article, however without any citation to back the content that the user up.

Pls read the question. Need different level of warning. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Answer iii:

{{Tlsubst|''uw-delete1''}}

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

This is used when a user removed content on the wikipedia articles without adequate explaination after reverting the user's editing multiple times for the same reason and explaining to the user.

if the removal of the content is unsourced and is a smallpart of the article, then just leave it as it is content should supported by content claimed - see WP:PROVEIT and verify. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi CASSIOPEIA I'm done with the 2nd assignment CASSIOPEIA. Please help me check my work if I've made any mistakes. Thank you. Sophiajoanne (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne Well done. See below reading materiel and exercises. You could use STiki tool, however, only user has rollback right could download Huggle tool. Most of us the vandal fighter use Huggle tools and Twinkle. You could apply for rollback right after you have done a good amount of vandal edits. From now onward, try to do some vandal edit (revert and warn) the user. If you are not sure then just leave it and let other vandal fighters or editors who know the subject matter to deal with it. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne Pls note after you revert the edit, you need to give a warning message on the user talk page - you can use Twinke, input manually or use STiki and also pls provide what type of warning you give on the comment (such as uw - unsourced 1) . If the user you revert has already been block and where is no point to give the warning then find a new one. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Tools

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

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

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

Twinkle

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

User creation log

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

Rollback

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

STiki

STiki is an application that you download to your computer, and it provides you with diffs which either it or User:ClueBot NG have scored on their possibility of being uncontructive, and you are given the option to revert it as vandalism, revert it assuming good faith, mark it as innocent, or abstain from making a judgment on the diff. In order to use STiki, you need one of the following: (1) the rollback permission, (2) at least 1000 article edits (in the article namespace, not talk/user pages), or (3) special permission via Wikipedia talk:STiki.

Huggle

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

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

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

Assignement

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

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment - If you report to AIV please include the diff	CASS's Comment
Exampale	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
1	[10]	The User changed the person's information without support of any sources. Hence I gave the user {{subst:uw-vand1}} for the user's 1st time warning.	N. The editor changed the height from 6'0 to 9'0" (faulty info even without needing to check the fact" and change Arizona Coyotes to non existing team Phenix Coyotes - see source Here. This is a vandalism edit. (see note 1 below) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
2	[11]	The user added contents into the article that does not add value to the article multiple times. {{subst:uw-vand1}} for the user's 1st time.	Y. The editor only make one edit - see the contribution log here HERE and not multiple times. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
3	[12]	The user removed large content from the article without explaining hence I gave the person {{subst:uw-delete1}} for the user's 1st time warning.	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
4	[13]	The user added unnecessary addition of personal comments on the article. Hence I gave the user {{subst:uw-vand2}} as a warning for the since the user was warned before.	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
5	[14]	Unexplained removal of large content on the article. Hence I gave the user {{subst:uw-delete1}} warning since it's the user's first time.	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
6	[15]	This user changed one of the section heading of my talk page that was written previously by another user. Hence I gave the user {{subst:uw-tpv1}} as a warning for the user's first time breaching this rule.	Y Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
7	[16]	Changed the one of the article's heading to nonsensical heading. Hence I gave the user {{subst:uw-vand1}}as a warning for the user's first time.	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
8	[17]	The user added personal comparison to the periodic table elements to a soccer team when the article is about the elements in the periodic table, period 3. Hence I gave the person a warning {{subst:uw-disruptive1}}	N to add faulty info to, the intention of the editor is to harm Wikipedia page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
9	[18]	The user added some comments on the article which seems not constructive to the article itself. Hence I gave the user {{subst:uw-disruptive1}} as their 1st warning.	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
10	[19] & [20]	The user seems to be adding nonsensical informations on the article. Since the user had previously gotten 2 warnings. Therefore, I gave the user {{subst:uw-vand3}}. However, after I gave the user warning, the user did not adhered to the warning, leading me giving the person {{subst:uw-vandal4}}	Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
11	[21] & [22]	The user again added nonconstructive informations onto the article. Hence I gave the person {{subst:uw-vandal4}} and later {{subst:uw-vandal4im}} since the user previously had 3 other warnings given by other users on Wikipedia.	Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
12	[23], [24], [25], [26]	I've decided to report to AIV [27] on this user since when I went to the user's talk I realised there were already till a {{subst:uw-vandal4im}} warning given by other users[28] 2 days ago.	Y Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
13	[29] & [30]	I've decided to report to AIV[31] on this user since this user is constantly adding un-relevant inflammations onto the article after multiple reverts.	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
14	[32]	This user added "1-30" without any reason onto the article which seems to be a test edit. Since this is the 1st time, I gave the person {{subst:uw-test1}}.	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
15	[33]	The user probably press "enter" to form the next paragraph at the middle of the sentence which seems to be a test edit to test how to use the Wikipedia. Hence I gave the person {{subst:uw-test1}} as the 1st time.	Y (see note 2 below) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne Greetings. Hi, I have not seen your worked on the exercises above for a long while. Are you still interested to work through the program or you want to abandon it? Please let me know. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I'm still keen to work through the program, I'll continue to update some of my anti-vandal works I've done the past few days. Thank you. Sophiajoanne (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne Good to know. Ok then. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne Good day. Pls provide warning type and level such as {{subst:Uw-unsourced1}} in the exercises above under "Your comment". Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I've finished the 3rd assignment. Please help me check my work if I've made any mistakes. Thank you. Sophiajoanne (talk) 10:47, July 4, 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne, Hi Kindly resubst the template with italics and

Hi Sophiajoanne, I have remove the "italic function" for the subst templates - now they are blue in color (correct one). If the text colour is red, that means no such page in Wikipedia. See below notes.

Note 1 - For sportperson statistic info (such as win/loss/height/clubs/etc), if you dont follow the sport closely and do not know whether the info added/changed is (i) right (ii) up to date (iii) there is no source in the article or (iv) you dont know where to find the source to verify the info then please leave the edit as it is for other vandal fighters who know about the sport or interested editors to verify the edit as sport stats info update extremely quickly/immediately once the match is over that also true in political election results.

Note 2 - Test edit - is first 1/2 edit made by new user who want to know if the really would "make an edit" in Wikipedia, such as place "hello/hi/remove a letter of a word/ add additional letter" and immediate self revert their edit.

If you have any questions, let me know or ping me if you are ready for you next assignment. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Thank you for your feedback, I'll take note of them. I'm ready for my next assignment. Sophiajoanne (talk) 07:10, July 5, 2019 (UTC)

Shared IP tagging

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Sophiajoanne, See Assignment 4 above. No exercises for this assignment but only some reading material. Once you have done reading, pls let me know. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I've done reading through the contents you had given me. Sophiajoanne (talk) 08:11, July 5, 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users

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

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Answer: We deny recognition to trolls and vandals because these users suffer from chronic alienation and real or perceived powerlessness and they are seeking for recognition and infamy by interrupting and frustrating the Wikipedia project and community. Hence, what they all want are the various attentions from the other Wikipedia users. Therefore, we should not feed the trolls which simply means that we should not argue with them on their talk page as this will mean that the trolls had gotten the attentions they have been wanting. We should also warn the vandals user on their misbehavior on articles. After reaching the maximum warning chances given, we can just report them to the AIV for further actions to be done.

Trolls seek attention. By not engaging with their troll and keeping a cool head, we deny the recognition they seek.

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

Answer: Good faith user are people who often really do have good-faith intentions and wish to resolve any disputes amicably with me. However, troll are people who may saying something bad or offensive to me, hence wanting to create a flame war and simply wanting the attention from me. For example, these trolls may saying things that may agitate me to reply their messages.

Sometimes good faith users would be upset when their edits are reverted, as they are only human and sometimes would leave unpleasant message on our talk page. The different is that trolls try to annoy you and good faith editors annoyed at you.

Hi Sophiajoanne, Posted Assignment 5 above. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I've finished Assignment 5. Please help me check my work if I've made any mistakes. Thank you. Sophiajoanne (talk) 05:54, July 6, 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne, See above comments. List your questions if any or you are ready for next assignment. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Thank you for your feedback. I'm ready for my next assignment. Sophiajoanne (talk) 03:43, July 7, 2019 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion

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

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

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

Answer: When there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sockpuppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest.

. We dont prevent protect the page just because we think there are some sockpuppets/blocked user from editing. If there are "multiple" editors vandalized the page or heavy disrupted the page, then the page can be protected. In other words, we need prove the page is vandalized/disruptive but we dont preemptive protect the page just because we think it will be vandalized. Example, many Ultimate Fighting Championships PPV event which we know the pages will be vandalized when the event is taking place, and we have to wait until it happens before we would report it to WP:RPP and get it protected. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Pending changes may be used to protect articles against persistent vandalism, violations of the biographies of living persons policy and copyright violations.

. We dont protect the page because of copyright violation. The page can be semi protected in 2 situations. (1) as per answer 1 above usually happen on the same day. (2) vandalism/disruptive edits "over a period of time" (several days to weeks) but the edit traffic volume is low (1-2 vandalized edits a day or every other day) but such edits are "persistent". Hist diff and date range should be provided for (2) when reporting to RPP so the admin dont need to find them. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: When the page have problematic issues for examples like blatant vandalism or disruption that is occurring and at a level of frequency that requires the full protection in order to stop it.

{{ yellow tick}] full protection of a page is the highest protection and only admin can edit the page. It is very rare and not many articles are fully protected. It usually happens when the page received a lot of vandalism /disruptive /serious content dispute (India and Pakistan / Israel and Palestine relationships and etc) or critical templates which will effect hundreds/thousands of articles. Deceased Wikipedian's user pages (but not talk pages) are also be fully protected.

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

Answer: When there are bad articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Talk page should be semi-protected for short duration only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users.

. from any users. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

1: [34] I requested for Persistent disruptive editing for the article 'List of Running Man episodes (2019)' as for a period of time, there are persistent vandalism, adding unsourced contents and disruptive editings from a number of IP addresses. Especially after the show airs, there will be heavy vandalism of adding unsourced contents and disruptive editings from IP addresses users.

. Protection grated here. Pls provide diff next time. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:13, 6 October 2019 (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: When the page fits into the speedy deleted criteria where specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. There are many criteria for speedy deletion listed on the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Examples of such criteria are:

G1. Patent nonsense: This is where the pages consisting of entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history.
G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes: This is where pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including images intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism. Articles about notable hoaxes are acceptable if it is clear that they are describing a hoax.
A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events): This is when the article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions.

. Many CSD criteria acutely. General (G1 to G14), Article (A1 to A11), and many others.

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: [35] and the criteria I requested to be deleted is [CSD A7] (A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)) since after I went to google search on the person and I did not find any significant articles on the person. In addition, the user also did not include proper citations on the article.

. Good. see here. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

2: [36] and the criteria I selected I requested to be deleted is [CSD A10] (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic) since I found out that there is one exact article [37] which is exactly the same contents as the one that I've requested for speedy deletion.

. Well done. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne, See Assignment 6 above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I had just done finished Assignment 6. Please help me check if there are any problems.Sophiajoanne (talk) 09:26, October 6, 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne, see the comment above and let me know if you have any questions. See your next assignment below. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)---

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.

Answer: This username seems to be acceptable. Hence there is no need for any action to be taken.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Answer: This is not an acceptable kind of username. This is because under the Wikipedia's Username Policy for Promotional names, it states that username should not be unambiguously representing the name of a company, group, institution or product. Hence for such cases, I can monitor the person's edits. If the user's edits seems to be promoting the company or products, then I should report to the "Usernames for administrator attention" (UAA). However, if the person is does not have any edits problematically in the related articles, I should just give a gentle advice for the user to change their username.

. Do write to the user and info and guilde them about Wikipedia username policy and advise the user to change his/her name. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Answer: This is an acceptable username. Hence, no action is needed to be taken. . N If the name is voiced then it sound offensive (Fuck You Dick) but the user might not come from English speaking nations and the spelling of the username might not look offensive to him/her. Do look at is the nature of the edits of the user - if the user is contributing in good faith, then advise them to change the user name. If the user is vandalizing then report to UAA without warning. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Answer: This is not an acceptable kind of username since after some research, this username seems to be associated to a company called Coles Supermarkets. Hence under the Wikipedia's Username Policy for Promotional names, it states that username should not be unambiguously representing the name of a company, group, institution or product. Hence for such cases, I can monitor the person's edits. If the user's edits seems to be promoting the company or products, then I should report to the "Usernames for administrator attention" (UAA). However, if the person is does not have any edits problematically in the related articles, I should just give a gentle advice for the user to change their username.

. Monitor the edits before reporting to UAA and do ask the user to change the username. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Answer: This is not an acceptable username. Since this username will mislead other user as it is similar to the signature Wikimarkup. Hence I will report to UAA.

.The system will not allow such username actually. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Answer: This is not an acceptable kind of username. This is because in the Wikipedia restrictions on usernames, there mentioned that user names cannot be an IP address or usernames that looks like an IP address. Hence I will report to the UAA.

.The system will not allow such username actually. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Answer: This is not an acceptable username. Since the username seems to be violating the BLP policy as the user maybe trying to target a pop singer (Justin Bieber). Hence I will report to the UAA.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne, See Assignment 7 above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I've done finished Assignment 7. Please help me to check if there are any errors. Thank you. Sophiajoanne (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne, See the above comment and I have posted Assignment 8 Progress test below. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:58, 7 October 2019 (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: Yes, this will be considered as vandalism. This is because the user added deliberately false/ unsourced/ may cause controversy information onto the article of a biography of a known individual.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

Answer: This action violated WP:BLP.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: I will give the user {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} if this is the 1st time the user made the vandalism. If this is not the user's 1st time, then I will give Level 2, 3, 4 or 4im (in extreme cases) warning depending on the situation.

4 or 4im - reserved for cases of widespread and particularly egregious vandalism only. If it's less than egregious, use a lower warning leve\. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (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. Since such vandalism by the user is considered an obvious vandalism and reverting an obvious vandalism by a user is exempted from the violating the three revert rule in this case.

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

Answer: {{IPvandal}} should be used in this case since this are the vandalism actions which are done by an IP address user.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: I will include vandalism past 4th warning as my reason for reporting the user assuming that either me or other user had already given the user a {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} and the user still continues his/her action of such vandalism on articles.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (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: In most of the cases, I will consider them as a test edits if this is the user's 1st edit. However if the user had previously did similar edits on the same or other articles, I will consider as vandalism.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: I will give the user {{subst:uw-test1}} if this is the user's 1st edit. However if the user had previously did similar edits on the same or other articles, I will give the user {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} and if the user continues his/her action, I will give the user Vandalism Level 2, 3, 4 or 4im warning depending on the situation.

If the user edit the same again then upgrade the warning level each time. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:I will use Rollback-AGF (Green).

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (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. I will give the user a level 4/4im warning before reporting to the AIV.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes. The user can be blocked indefinitely if he/she continues multiple of such vandalism actions despite multiple warnings by users to stop such action.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{vandal}} should be used since I'm reporting a user is a registered user who performed the vandalism actions.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: I will include reason as "vandalism past 4th warning" for reporting the user assuming that either me or other user had already given the user a {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} and the user still continues his/her action of such vandalism on articles.

or state vandal only account. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (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 if the user's edits seems to be promoting the Laptop company. Hence, in this case, I will select {{subst:uw-advert1}} in the Twinkle option if this is the user's 1st time.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

Answer: I will issue {{subst:uw-advert1}} or {{subst:uw-spam1}} to the user.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (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 since the article that the user created seems to show to be purely created to promote the company. In this case I will tag the article with a speedy deletion tag (G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion).

. The editor copied an pasted the content, so the editor violated copyright infringement (WP:COPYVIO).Tag G12 as well. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (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. I will leave {{subst:uw-username}} on the user's talk page to inform the user regarding their username issue.

{{subst:uw-coi-username}} - more specific. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:Yes since the account seems to be deemed as for promotional purposes only.

: Y. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne, See Assignment 8 above. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I've just completed assignment 8. Can you please help me check my work? Thank you. Sophiajoanne (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne Good work. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (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.

Sophiajoanne, Greeting. The next phase of this course is Assignment 10 - "Monitoring Period", see above. Pls read WP:EMERGENCY. If you have hundred of edits then I would not able to look through them all but will randomly select some to review your edits. Final Exam will follow after Monitoring Period. Pls read WP:EMERGENCY if you encounter any cases need urgent attention. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne, You 7 day monitoring period has shown no major issues. See below you Final exam question and kindly finish the exam in two weeks from todate. All the best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Final Exam

When responding to numbered questions please start your response with "#:" (except where shown otherwise - with **). You don't need to worry about signing your answers.

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. In most of the cases, I will consider them as a test edits if this is the user's 1st edit. So I will give the user {{subst:uw-test1}}.

.07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

2. However if the user had previously did similar edits on the same or other articles, I will consider as vandalism. In this case I will start by giving {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}. Also, if the user edit the same again then I will upgrade the warning level each time. When the warning reaches pass {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} or {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} for cases of widespread and particularly egregious vandalism, I will report the user to AIV.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (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. I will give user {{subst:uw-vand1}} if the user continues the action.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

4. I will give the user {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}. Also, if the user edit the same again then I will upgrade the warning level each time. When the warning reaches pass {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} or {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} for cases of widespread and particularly egregious vandalism, I will report the user to AIV.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (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. I will give the user {{subst:uw-npov1}} as their first warning after reverting their edit.

. It depends. If the article is bout John Smith, a revert with an edit summary of 'Unsourced and give them a level 1 warning for NPOV. If the article had nothing to do with any John Smith then vandal 1 can be given. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

6. I will give the user {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}. Also, if the user edit the same again then I will upgrade the warning level each time. When the warning reaches pass {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} or {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} for cases of widespread and particularly egregious vandalism, I will report the user to AIV.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

7. I will revert the user's edit and give him/ her {{subst:uw-test1}} if it is the user's first time.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

8. I will give the user {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}. Also, if the user edit the same again then I will upgrade the warning level each time. When the warning reaches pass {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} or {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} for cases of widespread and particularly egregious vandalism, I will report the user to AIV.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

9, 10 & 11. 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. I will have to check if what the sources available corresponded to what the user claimed. If the source indeed corresponded to what the user claimed, I will not take any action. However, if the sources available did not corresponded to what the user claimed, I will give the user {{subst:uw-delete1}} as their 1st warning.

. very good. I like your thought to check on the source prior action. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

10. I will give the user {{subst:uw-delete2}}. Also, if the user edit the same again then I will upgrade the warning level each time. When the warning reaches pass {{subst:uw-delete4}} or {{subst:uw-delete4im}} for cases of widespread and particularly egregious vandalism, I will report the user to AIV.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

11. It will not affect my action whether to revert/ undo the edit that the user removed or not. I'll still stay neutral and go through the process of checking the informations the user deleted have sources available that corresponded to what the user claimed.

. Right and well-done. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

12. I will give the user {{subst:uw-delete1}} and I will give the user {{subst:uw-delete2}} if the action continues. Also, if the user edit the same again then I will upgrade the warning level each time. When the warning reaches pass {{subst:uw-delete4}} or {{subst:uw-delete4im}} for cases of widespread and particularly egregious vandalism, I will report the user to AIV.

unsourced content can be removed, unless it whole article content is removed then we place delete 1 message. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

13. For articles in the topic that I am familiar with or following, I will check double check on the internet if the source that the user claimed not relevant was true or not (whether there are any evidence to before deciding to issue the user a warning. If after search, I'm still unsure if the user's stand is correct or not, I will leave to the other editors who are expert in the article's topic to decide whether to revert the user's edit.

very good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (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: Since this is a personal harm comments to oneself, I will email emergency@wikimedia.org with a diff of the user's edit.
Answer: I will also notify Wikipedia administrators privately.

Right. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: I will report to the AIV on the IP user.
Answer: I will email to emergency@wikimedia.org with a diff of the edit and inform any of the Wikipedia admins.

well-done. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Part 2 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. I will give the user {{uw-blank1}} if this is the 1st time the user had perform such action.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

2. I will give the user {{uw-blank1}}.

Should be

Please refrain from attempting to make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been disallowed by an edit filter. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

3: I will give the user {{uw-efsummary}}.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

4. I will give the user {{uw-vandalism1}} if this is the 1st time the user made the vandalism.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

5. Assuming it's the 1st time the user did this I'll give {{uw-delete1}}.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

Answer:

6. I will give the user {{uw-test1}}, assuming it's the 1st time.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

7. I will give the user {{uw-npov1}}, assuming it's the 1st time.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

8. I will give the user {{uw-biog1}}.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

9. I will give the user {{uw-vandalism4}}.

.for the fifth time - report to AIV CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

10. I will report the user to AIV for vandalism after the final warning.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (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. I will report the user at WP:ANI since this seems to be a harassment to me.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

12. I will give the user {{uw-image1}} as the 1st warning.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (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. I will report the user at WP:ANI since this seems to be a personal attack to me.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

14. A user adds "Italic text to Sydney

Answer:

14. For most cases, there is no need to give any warning to the user. According to MOS:NOITALIC, I will just undo/ revert the edit and leave comment telling the user to take note of MOS:NOITALIC

.good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

15. I will give the user {{uw-vandalism1}} if this is the 1st time the user made the vandalism.

. or {{uw-vandalism2}} CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (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. I will tag the page with G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

Answer:

2. I will tag the page with A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

3. Joe goes to England and comes home !

Answer:

3. I will tag the page with A1. No context

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

4. I will tag the page with G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes since a simple google search shows that there is no such animal which is called Smadoodle.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

5. Fuck Wiki!

Answer:

5. I will tag the page with G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes since this seems to be a blatant vandalism.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

What would you do in the following circumstance:

6. A user blanks a page they very recently created

Answer:

6. I will tag the page with G7. Author requests deletion if the user had left edit comment on the edit history of the article saying that he/ she wants to delete the page. If not, I will head to the user who had blanked the page if they actually want to delete the article before tagging the page with G7. Author requests deletion.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

7. I would ask the user why they removed the speedy delete tagged which was attached to the article that they created on their talk page in case they might not know how Wikipedia works and not sure why the article that they have created will be tagged as speedy delete.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (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. I will revert the edit and give them {{uw-afd1}} as their first warning.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

9. I will continue to revert and increasing the warning levels, report to WP:AIV if they continue the action even after the final warning.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

10. I will tag the page with G13. Abandoned Drafts and Articles for creation submissions.

. do check if it is worth G13. If the draft has potential then make a dummy edit and save with "postponing G13 " on the edit summary. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (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 the user edits are clearly promoting the band call 'The Main Street Band', then I will report the user to UAA. If not, I may encourage the user to change his/ her username on their talk page.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

2. Poopbubbles

Answer:

2. This username might be slightly offensive to some Wikipedia users. However, the username did not seriously violates the WP:Username_policy, I will probably just ignore unless the user made vandalism-related edits on Wikipedia article.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

3. Brian's Bot

Answer:

3. I'll check if this is a real bot through the user page. If it is not a real bot, I will report to the UAA.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

Answer:

4. This user name did not violate the username policy. Hence, I will not take any action unless the user made vandalism edits. However, I will conscider leaving a message on this user's talk page to change their username since their username are too long and complicated for other Wikipedia users to read.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

5. Bobsysop

Answer:

5. I will check if this this account as a real Wikipedia sysop (system operator). If it is not a real sysop, this user name is considered as misleading. This is because other Wikipedia users may mistake this account as a real Wikipedia sysop. Hence, I will report the username to UAA.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

6. 12, 23 June 2012

Answer:

6. I will report the username to UAA since this is a misleading username. Hence, other Wikipedia user may easily mistaken as an indication of "time".

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

7. PMiller

Answer:

7. There is no issue to the username, unless if the user seems to be impersonating P.Miller, then I will report to UAA.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

8. OfficialJustinBieber

Answer:

8. I will report to UAA since this is a misleading username and there might be other Wikipedia users who might mistaken as the real Justin Bieber.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

9. The Dark Lord of Wiki

Answer:

9. Similar to Q4, this user name did not violate the username policy. Hence, I will not take any action unless the user made vandalism edits.

. Even the user made vandalism edits, the user name does not violate username policy. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

10. I love you

Answer:

10. Similar to Q4, this user name did not violate the username policy. Hence, I will not take any action unless the user made vandalism edits.

same as Q9. Nothing wrong with that, I'll leave them with it. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (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, unless you mistakenly revert edits that are not vandalism edits. This is because reverting obvious vandalism edits are exempted according to WP:3RR.

Reverting obvious vandalism is not considered as edit warring. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

2. Vandalism-only accounts should be reported to WP:AIV using Twinkle.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

Answer:

3. It should be reported to the WP:ANI.

.Do inform involved parties on their talk page of the ANI. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

4. Blant username violations should be reported to WP:UAA using Twinkle.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

5. Personal attacks against other editors should be reported to WP:ANI.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

6. Edit war should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

7. I will report through Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for ambiguous violations only.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

8. I will report through WP:SPI using Twinkle once again.

. Do provide reasons, evident and hist diff when reporting. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

9. I will report through WP:RPP using Twinkle.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

10. I will report through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring using Twinkle.

.Do warn them first on their talk page of the might be engaging in 3RR and after the warning is placed and edit warring is still continue then report them. Do inform involved parties on their talk page that you have report them to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring . CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Part 6 - Theory in practice (40%)

1 & 2. Find and revert two instances of vandalism (by different editors on different pages), and appropriately warn the editor. Please give the diffs the warning below.

Answer:

1. [38] (History difference), [39] (The warning I gave the editor)

.

2. [40] (Edit difference), [41] (The warning I gave the editor)

This is a new user and might not know how to what a disamb page is like. We could AGF or place distriptive message, but I dont see is a "blatantly" vandalism per say. If after the warning and editor continue to do the same edit than vadal warning can be placed. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

3, 4 & 5. Find and revert one good faith edit, one self-revert test edit, one test edti and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.

Answer:

3. Good Faith Edit: [42] as the user added relevant detail, however it is unnecessary in the article.

it would be unsourced. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

4. A Self-reverting Test Edit: [43] VS [44]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

5. Reverting a Test Edit: [45] (Edit difference), [46] (Warning)

. If you look at the editor's contribution log, then you would know it was not the first few edits the editor made, thus it is not a test edit but a silly vandalism edit. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

6 & 7. Correctly report two users (two AIV and two of 3RR to ANI). Give the diffs of your report below.

Answer: AIV:

6a. I reported this user due to vandalism after final warning. Because despite warnings given by other users, this user still added disruptive content that contrary to the Manual of Style onto articles. Hence, I reported this user to the WP:AIV. Diff: [47]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

6b. I reported the user due to vandalism after 4th warning. Diff: [48].

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

3RR :

7a. I had reported the user User:EddyCodoZKazamaMrTabohZAMG to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring at [49] and had informed the user about the edit warring at [50] due to the user's continuous manual undoing the wrong edits on the article (Running Man) even with multiple warning given.

. Well-done CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

7b. N/A

. Understand it is hard to find edit warring incident at times. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

8, & 9. Correctly request the protection of four articles; post the diffs of your requests below.

Answer:

8a.[51]

- see here. For page protection, it page needs have "multiple" editors made disruptive/vandalism edits (such as at least 5 and up) to qualify. It usually happen when a breaking news of subject especially a negative one such as a team lost a games in devastating manner, a fighter/boxer got knockout cold and an entertainer get into a big scandal and etc. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

8b. [52]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

9a. [53]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

9b. [54]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

10 & 11. Correctly nominate four articles for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nominations below.

Answer:

10a. [55] I nominated the article for CSD A7

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

10b.[56] I nominated the article for CSD A7

- see HERE. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

11a.[57] I nominated the article for CSD A1

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

11b. [58] I nominated the article for CSD A1 and CSD A3

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

12 & 13. Correctly report two username as a breach of policy.

Answer:

12. Reported GEO5software for breaching Promotional names as the user's edits seems to be promoting a software by adding the same links on 2 different Wikipedia articles. Edit Difference: [59]; Report: [60]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

13. Reported Dc suck for Disruptive or offensive usernames as the username seems to the used word that might cause people to be offended and might cause unnecessary debate. The user name seems to be referring to the user's stand on DC comics. Report: [61]

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

14 & 15. Why is edit warring prohibited? What leads to edit warring?

Answer:

14. Edit warring is prohibited because it is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making consensus harder to reach.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

15. An edit warring occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

16. This is because when users vandalise on biographies of living people, other users who uses Wikipedia to search for the subject of the vandalised article, the information will be inaccurate. In addition, if users add defamatory information onto the article, this may caused the subject of the vandalised article to be affected as other users who are not familiar with the person might think that the information are true.

. The main concern of BLP vandalism is it could affect the subject's personal life, reputation, privay career. In some cases it also has legal implications as it can violate laws slander or controversial claims that are unsourced or cited to unreliable sources. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

17. I will first, keep a cool head so as to prevent myself from feeding the trolls which simply means that I will not argue with them on their/ my own talk page as this will mean that the trolls had gotten the attentions they have been wanting. I will simply just warn the troll user on their misbehaviour. After reaching the maximum warning chances given, I will just report them to the WP:AIV for further actions to be done.

. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

18. In Wikipedia, we deny recognition to trolls and vandals because these users suffer from chronic alienation and real or perceived powerlessness and they are seeking for recognition and infamy by interrupting and frustrating the Wikipedia project and community. Hence, what they all want are the various attentions from the other Wikipedia users.

.that is the way to go. good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

19. Semi protection of the page is when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered or socket puppet users on an article. Full protection of the page is used when the page received a lot of vandalism/ disruptive/ serious content or critical templates which will effect hundreds/ thousands of articles. Deceased Wikipedian's user pages (but not talk pages) are also be fully protected.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer:

20. Personal attacks are harmful to the Wikipedia community. This is because, this may make any Wikipedia editors not willing to edit on the Wikipedia since they are offended by the personal attacks. Hence, good-natured atmosphere are needed to create a good encyclopedia. Therefore, comments about attacking other editors on Wikipedia may be removed by any editor on the Wikipedia.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne Hi, Havent seen you working in the final exam, kindly complete it asap so I could get them review. This is your last one, let get it done. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi CASSIOPEIA, sorry, I'm busy with my schoolwork, but I had been trying to finish the final exam. I'll try my best to finish ASAP and ping you when I'm completed. Sophiajoanne (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi CASSIOPEIA, I've completed all the questions except qn 8, & 9 and 6 & 7. I've not been able to come across any article except one that I requested page protection and not able to come across pages that trip the 3RR. When I found such articles I will update again. Sophiajoanne (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne Hi, have you installed Wikipedia:STiki? if not do installed it for you would find pages needed page protection and 3RR. Let me know.07:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi CASSIOPEIA, I just installed Wikipedia:STiki. Sophiajoanne (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne. See the above commment. You have only 4 more questions to answer and STiki would help a lot to sport 3RR and RPP. Get it done and ping me. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne Could you pls finished the exam as you have only 4 more questions to answer. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne You have STiki now and please finish the remaining 4 questions in one week and if not i will considered the final exam is done and marked no point for the unanswered questions. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to finish during the weekend after my school exams. Sophiajoanne (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne Good day. I believe you exam would be finished by now. I will close the Final exam by midnight 31 December 2019 and I hope you will provide the remaining 4 answers in the Final exam. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

CASSIOPEIA, I guess I had almost finish the questions. I guess you can just mark. Thank you and sorry for all the delays. Sophiajoanne (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne Understand you have school and other priority in life. Good to know you have finished the exam. Reviewed and see comments.07:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Final score

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage
1	15	14	15%	14%
2	15	15	15%	15%
3	10	10	10%	10%
4	10	9	10%	9%
5	10	10	10%	10%
6	20	16	40%	32%
TOTAL	80	74	100	90%

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 95%. 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 Sophiajoanne It's been a pleasure to work with you over the past month. I hope you gained something from this CVUA program. You could go to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback to request your rollback user right and do inform you have graduated from CVUA program. once it is approved you can download WP:Huggle as this is a great vandalism tool to use. I use both Twinkle 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) 07:16, 5 January 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.