User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Maka the Two Star Meister

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/Maka the Two Star Meister.

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.

: Y I have already enabled Twinkle. Maka ^(talk) 01:56, 2 November 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, WP:VAND 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 (i) Good faith edit: A good faith edit is an edit that may be unhelpful, but not vandalism. When an editor makes a good faith edit, they are trying to help the encyclopedia, not hurt it. Examples of good faith edits include test edits and edits that accidentally break tables, templates, or other kinds of wiki markup.

. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Answer (ii) Vandalism edit: A vandalism edit is an edit that is deliberately made to damage Wikipedia. When an editor makes a vandalism edit, they are purposely trying to damage the encyclopedia. Examples of vandalism include inserting inappropriate humour or jokes into an article, removing sourced content without an explanation, and repeatedly adding gibberish to articles.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Answer (iii) How you would tell them apart: The way to tell good faith edits and vandalism apart is intent. Although their edits may be disruptive, most new editors have good intentions, so they should be treated differently from vandals. Maka ^(talk) 01:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

. When you not sure, do check the editor history log and talk page to see their editing pattern if their edit is in question (could be good faith but dont know the Wikipedia guidelines). 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) 08:29, 4 November 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.

Good faith

Answer:

1. [1] (appears to be made in good faith, but no sources were provided)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

2. [2] (seems to be an attempt to get people to stop removing content from this article)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

3. [3] (possibly a test or accidental edit) Maka ^(talk) 00:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

. It was a test edit for it was the first edit made by the editor and the to me the editor was trying to see if they could actually make in Wikipedia. Editor usually test they edit by removing/adding a character or say "Hi/Hello" and sometimes revert they own edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

Answer:

1. [4]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

2. [5]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

3. [6] Maka ^(talk) 06:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Maka the Two Star Meister Good day. G'day. I have set up the program page for you. Again please bear in mind, do NOT revert more than 3 times within 24 hours on the same page if the edit you reverted are NOT considered blatantly vandalism for you will be blocked. Let the edit alone if you are not sure what to do with it and let other more experience vandal fighters or editors who are familiar with the page to action.

Any question regrading the assignment, please let me know here. For other questions not relating to the assignments, ping me on the talk page of this subpage Here. See above the first assignment. Ping me here when you are done -and ready for review. Here is how to provide hist diff guides - Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide.

The motto of the Counter Vandalism Unit is Civility – Maturity – Responsibility. Welcome to CUVA. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Maka the Two Star Meister Hi, do note "Good faith and vandalism" is a 3 parts question. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey Cassiopeia , I finished the assignment. I was a but busy this week, so it took me longer than I expected. Maka ^(talk) 00:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Maka the Two Star Meister Pls answer on Twinkle section, if you have enable it. Also again, "Good faith and vandalism" is a 3 parts question and pls do not remove the "Answer (i) Good faith edit: " and etc. When you have finished the rework, then ping me. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I think I did the assignment correctly this time. Maka ^(talk) 02:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Maka the Two Star Meister Reviewed. Good work. See comments above. Do provide the reasons/justification next time on all you answer (such as Q4-6). Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move to next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm ready to move on to the next assignment. Maka ^⭐^(talk) 00:11, 6 November 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

(1) Why do we warn users?

Answer: We warn users to inform them that their edit(s) are against Wikipedia's policies and to deter them from repeating their mistakes, which may lead to a block if they continue. This helps users to contribute constructively. Maka ^⭐^(talk) 02:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

. very well. Right. 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) 04:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: When a user has vandalized multiple pages and has not received any warnings or when a user vandalizes pages with extremely offensive things (like adding racial slurs or severe BLP violations to an article). Most of the time, it is better to use lower level user warnings. Maka ^⭐^(talk) 02:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

. Good. 4im is only for widespread and particularly egregious vandalism and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes, you should substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, so that the message will remain the same even if the template's wording is changed. To substitute a template, you must place subst: in front of the template's name. Here's an example of a substituted warning template:

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Maka ^⭐^(talk) 02:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Maka ^⭐^(talk) 02:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

> Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer i: Hello, I'm Maka the Two Star Meister. 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. Maka ^⭐^(talk) 02:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

This template would be used when a user adds content that violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and has not been warned. Maka ^⭐^(talk) 02:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

> Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Maka ^⭐^(talk) 02:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

This template would be used when a user removes sourced content with no explanation and already has received a level 1 warning. Maka ^⭐^(talk) 02:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

> Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you assume ownership of articles. Maka ^⭐^(talk) 02:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

This template would be used when a user repeatedly shows ownership over articles. Maka ^⭐^(talk) 02:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

> Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

{Maka the Two Star Meister 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.07:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Maka the Two Star Meister, Pls let me know if you have finsihed with the assignment above, so I may review it. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:Yes, I've finished the assignment. I was about to ping you.

Maka ^⭐^(talk) 03:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Maka the Two Star Meister, Good work. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready for next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I'm ready for the next assignment. Maka ^⭐^(talk) 05:50, 7 November 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	Unsourced	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
1	Test edit	[7]	This looks like a test edit because the user changed one character. I warned this user with {{subst:uw-test1}}.	Y. Thought the edit looked like a test edit; however, if we look at the contribution of the editor - see here, the editor started edit in 2003 for 3 edit. To said that since it is more than 7 years before the IP editor made another edit, we would not sure it is the same person here. Do note, we identify user either by their IP addresses (if they are not registered) or by their user name, in regardless if other people use the IP or the user account to edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
2	Test edit	[8]	This looks like a test edit because the user deleted part of a sentence, however this was the first edit they made. I warned this user with {{subst:uw-test1}}.	Y. Although it was the IP user first edit, I am not sure about the "intention" (back to Assignment 1) if the user was "trying to see if they could make an edit in Wikipedia" as the IP user deleted some text. See notes for test edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
3	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[9]	This is obvious vandalism. I reported this user to AIV because they were a vandalism-only account.	Y. Well-done. Cassiopeia^(talk)
4	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[10]	This is vandalism. I think this is a joke about Fetty Wap's song Trap Queen. I warned this user with {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} and reported them to AIV as a vandalism-only account after they made this edit.	Y. Good work. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
5	WP:NPOV	[11]	This edit added an opinion to the article ("The show really is not all that good though"). I warned this user with {{subst:uw-npov1}}.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
6	WP:NPOV	[12]	This edit added an unsourced claim that this person advocated for conspiracy theories. I warned this user with {{subst:uw-npov1}}.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
7	WP:SPAM	~~[13]~~ [14]	~~This edit added an external link to a website that wasn't related to the article. I warned this user with {{subst:uw-spam2}}, since they already had a warning on their talk page.~~ This edit added link to a podcast. After listening to a bit of this podcast, I came to the conclusion that it was spam. I warned the user with {{subst:uw-spam1}}. I had a better example for this, but it got revision deleted.	Y. Happy to know that you took the effort to check out the link/source. We usually would do the same if an editor remove sourced content and stated "not true/not in the source". Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
8	Talking on the article	[15]	This edit added the phrase "wow u really read this" to the bottom of the article. I warned this user with {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}, because {{subst:uw-talkinarticle}} is a single-issue notice and they had inserted this phrase into the article twice.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
9	Unsourced	[16]	This edit added an unsourced claim that this person was in a relationship with James Marden. I warned this user with {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} since this edit appears to be made in good faith.	Y. Unsourced content can be removed from article especially WP:BLP articles. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
10	Unsourced	[17]	This edit added an unsourced claim that this person was in a relationship with Ella Sufiya. I warned this user with {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}, since this was their first edit.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
11	Vandalism (reported to AIV)	[18]	This user had repeatedly removed the infobox with no explanation. I reported this user to AIV for vandalizing after receiving a final warning.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
12	Vandalism (reported to AIV)	[19]	This edit added defamatory content to the article. I reported this user to AIV because they already had a final warning for repeatedly tripping edit filters.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
13	Vandalism (reported to AIV)	[20]	This is obvious vandalism. I warned this user with {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} and reported them to AIV because they were clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. This user also apparently tried to blank my userpage.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
14	Vandalism (reported to AIV)	[21]	This is also obvious vandalism. I warned this user with {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} and reported them to AIV as a vandalism-only account. I think it's worth noting that this user is a sockpuppet of #3.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
15	Vandalism (reported to AIV)	[22]	This is obvious vandalism. I warned this user with {{subst:uw-vandalism3}}. I later reported them to AIV for vandalizing after receiving a level 4 warning.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
16	Test edit	[23]	I believe "Italic text" and "Bold text” is the placeholder text when you want to make text italic or bold. This user had made a few edits up to this point. They all appeared to be made in good faith, so I assumed that this was just a test edit. I warned them with {{subst:uw-test1}}.	N That is not a test edit. Pls read the test edit note again. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
17	Test edit	[24]	These edits only changed a few characters. They didn’t seem to be very malicious, so I assumed they were just test edits. I warned the user with {{subst:uw-test1}}.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Maka the Two Star Meister Good day. Assignment 3. If Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:58, 7 Novembe 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cassiopeia, I finished the assignment. Maka ^⭐^(talk) 04:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Maka the Two Star Meister, I saw you removed your answer #7 - WP:SPAM, would you pls replace with new answer pls. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I replaced# #7 with a new answer. Maka ^⭐^(talk) 06:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Maka the Two Star Meister, Good work here. Kindly complete additional one test edit (Q 16). Let me know when you have done. I will also post Assignment 3 below for you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:I filled out the final question. Maka ^⭐^(talk) 20:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Maka the Two Star Meister, Kindly answer additional question 17 (test edit) pls read the test edit note again. Always remember to understand what ist the "intention" of the editor. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, completed #17. Maka ^[1]^{[failed verification]} 04:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Maka the Two Star Meister, Thank you and reveiwed. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Notes

Test edit - When an editor "trying" to make an edit (their first edit) to confirm if the "actually" can make an edit in Wikipedia. So the intention here is good faith. Editors would usually remove or add an alphabet or number to an article. Sometime the editor would revert their own edit on the later.

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:").

Maka the Two Star Meister, 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. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:02, 16 November 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: Trolls only want attention and recognition. By denying recognition we don't give them the attention they want, which hopefully should make them give up.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:26, 25 November 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: Good faith users will ask you why you reverted their edit with a reason why it shouldn't have been reverted. They may get angry or annoyed, but that doesn't mean they're a troll. Trolls will just harass and try to annoy you.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:26, 25 November 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: You should email emergencywikimedia.org and contact an administrator (or an oversighter, if the threat contains personal information) in private so they can revision delete (or suppress) the threat. There is an IRC channel where you can request revision deletion, #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect. The email should contain where the threat was made, and diffs that show the threat.

. Cassiopeia^(talk)

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: Still treat the threat seriously and ask for help from an administrator on IRC or by email. It’s safer to treat it seriously even if it’s just a joke. Maka the Two Star Meister pls be specific what kind of help and where to find the help. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Made it more specific. Maka ^[1]^{[failed verification]} 06:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:26, 25 November 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: Sockpuppetry can take several forms. A few reasons why people might commit sockpuppetry is so they can evade a block or ban, support themselves in an argument, circumvent the three-revert rule so they can edit war, impersonate a user, and editing logged to evade scrutiny or vandalize Wikipedia. You can report suspected sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.

. It also takes the forms of

a. Logging out deliberately and using your IP to make a problmatic edits. b. Creating an addidional unauthorised account or multiple accounts, usualy for block evading or vote stuffing or trying to avaoid 3 Revert Rule. The main account is the "Puppet Master" the others are the "Sock(s)" c. The use of someone elses account (known as "Piggybacking") d. Reviving an old disused "Sleeper" account f. The persuasion of others to back your position in a discussion - "Meatpuppetry" Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Maka the Two Star Meister, see Assignment 5 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Finished assignment 5 (and 4). I forgot to say that I finished assignment 4. Maka ^[1]^{[failed verification]} 02:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Maka the Two Star Meister, see above comments. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:26, 25 November 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.

Done Maka ^[1]^{[failed verification]}

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

Answer: When there is a large amount of vandalism, disruptive editing, or sockpuppetry, a page can be semi-protected to prevent new users and logged out users from editing the page.

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

: Answer: When there is a large amount of disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, and vandalism, but it is more spread out over time, a page should be pending changes protected to allow good-faith users to still make edits to the page.

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

Answer: When there is a content dispute on a page between 2 or more editors, and one or more users are extended-confirmed, the page should be fully protected. A page can also be fully-protected if extended-confirmed users are vandalizing the page.

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

Answer: When a page is problematic (i.e. promotional/non-notable) and has been recreated several times, it should be salted so it can't be recreated again.

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

Answer: In cases of excessive and severe amounts of vandalism, a talk page can be semi-protected. It should not be protected for a long amount of time, because this prevents good-faith users from posting edit requests and discussing the page.

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

Answer i:

Answer ii:

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

Done Maka ^[1]^{[failed verification]}

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

Answer: A page should be speedily deleted if it undoubtedly meets any for the criteria for speedy deletion and can be uncontroversially deleted. For example, if a page is an attack page, patent nonsense, or a blatant hoax, it should be speedily deleted under G10, G1, and G3 respectively.

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

Answer i: Draft:Beauty space ([25], G11)

This page was heavily promotional in tone. It described this business as having excellent customer care and being one of leading businesses in cosmetic dealers. I tagged it for speedy deletion under G11.

Answer ii: Draft:Nagananda International Institute for Buddhist Studies ([26], G12)

This draft contained a paragraph that was copy and pasted from here. The website had "All Rights Reserved" written at the bottom, so I tagged the page for speedy deletion under G12 as fast as possible.

It's also worth noting that the user who created this draft had the username "NIIBS Sri Lanka", so this page may have actually been created by the institute.

Answer iii: User:M.N.S. AKILESH ([27], U5)

This user page consisted of an off topic writing that had nothing to do with Wikipedia. I tagged it for speedy deletion under U5.

Answer iv: نیشا راؤ
([28], A10)

This was an article on Nisha Rao in Urdu. It was originally tagged for speedy deletion under A7. This person seemed to be notable, but Wikipedia already had an article on her, so I removed the A7 speedy deletion tag and replaced it with an A10 speedy deletion tag.

Maka the Two Star Meister, See Assignment 6 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Maka the Two Star Meister, Good day, haven't seen you working on your assignment for some weeks and hope all is well with you. Assignment 6 is the last hard assignment and the rest would be easy besides the final exam. You have only had a few more assignment to go before the final exam and I hope you would finish them. Let me know if you have any questions or anything you need help on as I am here to help. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I’ve been really busy in real life and I couldn’t edit Wikipedia for a few weeks. Sorry! Maka ^⭐️^(talk) 14:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Maka the Two Star Meister, Thank you for informing. Once you are free again, come back and continues the program. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Maka the Two Star Meister, Hi, good day, you have only one question (Q6) to answer to complete this assignment, pls let me know if you need any help. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Maka the Two Star Meister, you have only one question (Q6) to answer to complete this assignment. If you dont wish to continue the program, then pls let me know. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)