User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Roller26

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/Roller26.

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

How to use this page

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

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

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

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

I have already enabled Twinkle -- Roller26 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism[edit]

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

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

Answer: A person's edit with a right intention to build, expand and maintain a free encyclopedia will be considered good faith edits while a person's edit with a definite intention of defeating Wikipedia's purpose will be considered as a vandalism edit. Like innocent until proven guilty, we have to assume good faith until we can uncover definite evidence suggesting otherwise. An edit history suggesting no change in disruptive behavior after repeated warnings and links to relevant policy and guideline pages can be treated as vandalism edits especially for new and IP address users. However care has to be taken to not label vandals to edits which might simply be bold and not according to consensus but otherwise not engaging in vandalism. -- Roller26 (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:38, 31 August 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]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Answer (2) [2]

. Do note that adding unsourced content is not considered vandalism edit; However, if editor continues to add unsourced content after many warning templates received, it would considered a disruptive edit. Continuing make disruptive edits can be reported to WP:ANI. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Answer (3) [3]

.Do note that adding unsourced content is not considered vandalism edit; However, if editor continues to add unsourced content after many warning templates received, it would considered a disruptive edit. Continuing make disruptive edits can be reported to WP:ANI. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

vandalism

Answer:

Answer (1) [4]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Answer (2) [5]

. Removed unsourced content is not considered a vandalism. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Answer (3) [6] - Roller26 (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Roller26 Good day. Any question regrading the assignment, please let me know here. For other questions not relating to the assignments, ping me on the talk page of this subpage Here. See above the first assignment. Pls provide "all" hist diffs (revert diff, report diff, deletion diff, talk page diff and etc.) on your assignment Welcome to CVUA. Ping me here when you are done and ready for review. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Attempted the AGF and vandalism section. Kindly review it at your convenience. I had a question, should we consider it a vandalism if a new user or IP address blanks a section as their first edit? Also if in doubt about AGF or vandalism, should we go with AGF? Thanks -- Roller26 (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Roller26 Pls see the review above and pls provide hist diff of your question, so I may know the nature of the deletion. Btw, any questions/communication regarding this program, pls address it on this page. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, the question I had got resolved. Also it seems you did not review the question asking differences about AGF and vandalism. If things seems okay, I would like to move to the next section. Thanks - Roller26 (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Roller26 Thanks for informing. Reviewed Q1. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Warning and reporting[edit]

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: It is mainly done to integrate the new user into editing and contributing to the project constructively. In the first levels of warning we welcome them and provide links to relevant policies and guidelines so that they can learn about the consensual methods governing WP. The warning is important because it helps us filter the good faith users from bad faith users as the former will try to learn and adapt to accepted practices and the latter will ignore everything and continue on their agenda. Latter level warnings are stronger in nature and may lead up to a block. - Roller26 (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

. The purpose is to "educate" the editors on constructive editing, especially those who are new to Wikipedia and to "deter" them of such actions with stronger warnings leads up to a block. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: 4im warning is used when through the action of the user we can safely assume bad faith. It should be only be used in the case of excessive or continuous disruption from a user. The language of 4im warning is very strong cease and desist and it is usually the first and only warning. - Roller26 (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Very well. 4im is only for widespread and particularly egregious vandalism such as vandalism only account and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism.

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

Answer: Yes it normally suggested to use the {{WP:SUBST}} template as the message on the user page does not change even if the original template is changed some time later. We can do it by adding {{subst:template}} instead of just {{template}} - Roller26 (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: I would report the user or IP address to WP:AIV and explain my case using diff's and other behavioral evidence (if any). This should enable a admin to take a look at the evidence and make a through decision. - Roller26 (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:51, 1 September 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. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions 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 level 1 warning for disruptive editing. This could be used when the user blanks a section page without references, but they do not provide any justification for doing so. - Roller26 (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

. Correctly subst but (1) If the user removes/deletes "unsourced" content, then leave the editor alone. If the editor removes/blanks/deletes a "sourced" content without explanation then we place "delete" warning template. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii:

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation of this behaviour may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

This is level 2 warning for misleading edit summaries. This will be used when the user already has level 1 warning and has purposely mislead in the edit summary as to his actual intention behind the edit. - Roller26 (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii:

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

This is level 3 warning for blatant advertising or promotion. This will be used when the user already has level 2 warning on his page and has engaged in either creation or editing or a page(s) with blatantly promoting someone or something. - Roller26 (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Roller26 See assignment 2 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have completed assignment 2. Kindly review it your convenience. Thanks - Roller26 (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Roller26, pls see the comment above and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have gone through the comments and would like to move to the next assignment. - Roller26 (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Tools[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

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

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

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

#	Type	Diff of your revert	Your comment - If you report to AIV please include the diff	CASS' Comment
Example 1	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[7]	Already had up to level 4 warnings today on this article from other users, so straight to AIV My report to AIV Thankfully they were very rapidly blocked by the admin [8] Later, the admin hid the edits made by this editor - see User Contributions so my diff in 3rd column no longer works unfortunately - see also admins deletion log [9]
Example 2	WP:NPOV	[10]	Added their own opinion "...well known for causing trouble" about a protest group, this editor already had level 1 NPOV warning today, so I gave a level 2 {{subst:uw-npov2}}.
1	Test edit	[11] [12] [13] [14] [15]	Warned the user with level 1 warning [16]	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
2	Test edit	[17]	Level 1 warning [18]	N. Pls see Notes section for test edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
3	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[19]	Report to AIV [20] Block Log [21]	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
4	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[22]	Report to AIV [23] Block Log [24]	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
5	WP:NPOV	[25]	Removing a sourced criticism of Mao. Warned user with Level 1 [26]	N - removing the adjective would be more NPOV actually. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
6	WP:NPOV	[27]	Strong claim without citation. Welcome the user with warning [28]	N it is unsourced content. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
7	WP:SPAM	[29]	Promoting own blog. Warned user level 1 on their talk page [30]	Y. Good work. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
8	Talking on the article	[31]	Warned user with single-issue notice [32]	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
9	Unsourced	[33]	Changed nationality of BLP without source. Level 2 warning on talk page [34]	Y or vandalism as sources would be found in the internet for verification. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
10	Defamatory content	[35]	Added warning for level 1 defamatory content on their talk page [36]	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
11	Unsourced (changing statistics not found in sourced material)	[37]	Welcomed them with unsourced template [38] as the source mentions only 8 speaker and not 7600 [39]	N. It is very good practice to check the source if info has been changed to verify what was edited is as per source or not. However, the source specify 8 and not 7600 speaker, then the edit made by the is a vandalism act. Unsourced edit is usually add in content without the support of source. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
12	Advertising/Promotion	[40]	Promoting non-notable company on DAB page. Warned the user with Level 1 [41]	Y. Good work. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
13	Spam	[42]	External Link of Indonesian distributor for a Croatian Company. Level 1 warning [43]	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
14	WP:NPOV	[44]	Level 1 warning [45]	Y I am not familiar with the subject and will go by what you have reverted. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
15	Deliberate Factual Error	[46]	Level 1 warning [47]	I cant find source to support either DOB (do point it out to me if I have missed it). Did you find source in the internet to justify your revert? Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
16	Vandalism	[48]	Level 1 warning [49]	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
17	WP:NPOV	[50]	Level 1 warning [51]	I am not sure this is a NPOV content but I am a vegetarian and do not have much knowledge of such area. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
18	Test edit	[52] [53]	Welcomed with test editing template [54]	Y this is not true "test" edit but a self revert test edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
19	Test edit	[55] [56]	Welcomed with test editing template [57]	Y this is not true "test" edit but a self revert test edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
20	Unsourced	[58]	Level 1 warning [59]	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
21	Test edit	[60]	This was the user's first edit. They were probably trying to understand how to put references, but clearly this was an test edit. Gave them level 1 warning using {{subst:uw-test1}} [61]	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
22	Test edit	[62]	This was the user's first edit. They put a full stop after the last item on the list. Gave them level 1 warning using {{subst:uw-test1}} [63]	Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Roller26 Good day. If Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. At the moment STiki is not working. Pls provide article name, hist diffs, editor talk page where you place the warning message, reports hist diffs and any links that is applicable. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Promo Username warnings [64] coz of [65] but they discolsed at their user page [66] 2nd [67] due to [68]

Roller26 You above links and info, I believe, is for one of the questions in the table and not at the communication section. Pls have a look. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I didn't mean to disturb you without finishing the whole assignment. I am just putting diffs with very brief explanation which I will expand before submitting the assignment. I came across these two usernames which seemed promotional in nature especially with their edits. I just put warnings of username policy without reporting to UAA. I just wanted to know if that was correct as I am not thoroughly well versed with username policy. Thnaks - Roller26 (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Roller26, You can report them to UAA. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have completed this assignment. Sorry for the delay I was busy in my life and even on Wikipedia in other areas. Kindly check it when convenient. Thanks. Roller26 (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Roller26 I like the fact that you work on different types of vandalism work instead sticking to the same few. For test edit and NPOV, pls see the notes section. Kindly work on the additional question from Q17 to Q20. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have completed the assignment. Kindly check it when convenient. Thanks. Roller26 (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

15, the sources on internet are not reliable or circular (sourcing back from WP itself) and hence neither his birth year as 1983 or 1993 can reliably be sourced. I think the best course of action is to remove DOB unless RS can be provided.
5, Mao's action in the context have been widely criticized due to inefficiency and number of deaths both by academics within and outside China and even by the Communist Party of China after his death in 1981. Hence I think that putting as inefficient is the correct NPOV version. Roller26 (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Roller26 Pls read the test edit on the notes section again and see examples of test edits here-1, here-2 and here-3. Pls provide 2 test edit as per examples above on Q 21 and Q22. when you have done pls ping me.

5-the sources are not from internet, thus I cant see if that is as per source claim. Did you able to check the existing source? if not then we take it as NPOV.
15, If no source could be found, then it should not be a "Factual error". Unsourced content can be removed from article. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have completed the assignment. Kindly check it when convenient. Thanks. Roller26 (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Roller26 Reviewed. See comment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

(3) WP:NPOV - Wikipedia content should be written in neutral point of view which means no WP:PUFF languages which would enhance the subject and persuade the reader emotions.

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

Shared IP tagging[edit]

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 Roller26, 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) 01:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have read the above material. We can move to the next assignment. Thanks. Roller26 (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users[edit]

Harassment and trolling[edit]

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 and vandals thrive on getting recognition and hence we start the loop of positive feedback by engaging with them. Its a no win scenario for us and for the trolls, all they are looking for is recognition from the community. They usually want to get some sort of response from the disruptive activity they do. Not recognizing them is the best course of action for us and after few such episodes, they might never come back.

To provide positive feedback is ok but the main point/goal of the trolls is that they want attention. We dont feed them and dont get mad by denying them the recognition that they seek is critical to countering them. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:09, 13 October 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 care about building a better encyclopedia while the troll does not. A new user might get annoyed when their hard work is reverted due to a policy or guideline they had no idea about. However the good faith user will try to see reason and learn from the experience especially when politely and patiently directed to do so. The troll will only try to annoy us without seeing any reason. Checking their edit history also gives a good idea about their intention on being on this project.

. One way we could see the behaviour of the editor is by looking at their contribution log and talk page to understand the nature of their edits especially when we could not tell if it is a disruptive edits or just being no knowing how to edits/know the guidelines. Do note sometimes good faith editor do get upset when we reverted their edit and place a warning message and convey their message which might not be pleasant for your standard. Many times troll might not use personal attacks but being rude, condescending, put down, name calling and etc. To check on the editors past edits/talk page would help; however, the bottom line is that trolls want to annoy you and good faith editors annoyed at you and that is the subtle different. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Emergencies[edit]

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

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

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

Answer: I would report the physical harm threats to Wikimedia foundation staff by email (emergency@wikimedia.org) or by clicking Special:EmailUser/Emergency. For non-physical harm threats, I would contact them via WP:Contact us, also contact the admin discreetly and not on high traffic admin boards.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: I would let the Wikimedia foundation staff who are trained in this to determine the level of threat and simply follow the above steps.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Sock pupperty[edit]

Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and answer the question below

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

Answer: Sockputtery takes the following forms:

IP edits: Logging out from user account and making IP edits
New account creation: Creating new accounts for evading sanctions and detections.
Piggybacking: Using a family or friend's account
Sleepers: Reviving old accounts and presenting oneself as a different user
Meatpupperty: Convincing family and friends to create accounts and support their side of dispute on WP

All suspected sockpuppets should be reported at WP:Sockpuppet investigations by including proper evidence and justifications including their interaction pattern, behavioral analysis, style of editing, vote stacking evidence and other evidence of evading blocks.

Note: A had brush with a sockpuppet account just a few weeks back. I had nominated a article for deletion WP:Articles for deletion/Youth Against Rape, the creator after some time created a sockpuppet account, got recognized, reported, confirmed and then blocked [69].

. I am surprise the master sp got only one week block. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Roller26, see Assignment 5 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have completed the assignment. Kindly check it when convenient. Thanks. Roller26 (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Roller26, See above comment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion[edit]

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[edit]

Please read the protection policy

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

Answer: Pages having high edit rate which attract high amount of persistent vandalism and disruptive editing from IPs and new users (non-auto confirmed or non-confirmed users).

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Compared to semi-protected this protection is applied to pages with low edit rate. This is also applied when consistent but lesser volume vandalism is taking place over a longer period of time. The edits of IPs and new users have to be approved by Pending Changes Reviewer to be visible for vast majority of readers (non logged-on).

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: This is only used when even extended confirmed users are not allowed to edit the article. This applies to extremely visible pages (like Main page) and very heavily used templates (where even minor disruption in these can put the entire project in bad light). Also its applied to mainspace articles in cases of major edit warring or content disputes amongst extended confirmed users, particularly for sensitive topics.

I had draftified Kimberly Klacik in August. The article was recreated 3 days later in mainspace and then got in midst of pretty partisan edit warring amongst senior editors, leading to a week long full protection. [70]

.good example. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: The page is salted when even after the deletion they are recreated multiple times. They don't meet the notability criteria for inclusion on the project but their creators without paying heed to the guidelines repeatedly create same or similar content. Also pre-emptive actions are taken for inappropriate tiles in the title blacklist system.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Talk pages are rarely protected as the article talk pages allow for protected edit requests and user talk pages allow blocked users to contest their blocking. Only in severe cases of vandalism is the article talk page protected for short durations. User talk pages are protected when they experience trolls or abuse on their talk pages.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer i: 2020 Atlantic hurricane season Semi-protection Requested Protection Log

. Good work. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: Vice President of the United States Semi-protection Requested Protection Log

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Please read WP:CSD

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

Answer: The deletion for non-obvious cases is through Proposed Deletion or community discussion and consensus at AfD, CfD, RfD, TfD, FtD, MfD. CSD is the only method where admins have discretion to delete pages immediately without discussion when there is no practical chance for the page to survive the deletion discussion.

The criteria for CSD are:

General (G1-G14)
Articles (A1-A3, A5, A7, A9-A11)
Redirects (R2-R4)
Files (F1-F11)
Categories (C1-C2)
User Pages (U1-U3, U5)
Templates (T3)
Portals (P1-P2)

Some of the most common CSD's are G11 for unambiguous advertising or promotion, A7 for no indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events), R2 for cross-namespace redirects, and U5 for blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer i: G11 - 7th entry and Deletion Log

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: G12 - 11th entry and Deletion Log

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: U5 - 6th entry and Deletion Log

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer iv: U5 - 10th entry and Deletion Log

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Roller26, See Assignment 6 above. This would be last difficult assignment besides the final exam. Assignment 7,8 and 9 are rather easier. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:, done with the above assignment. Check it at your convenience. Thanks. Roller26 (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Roller26, Good work. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Usernames[edit]

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

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

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

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

DJohnson

Answer: Unless from their edit history we can prove a case of WP:IMPERSONATE, I will do nothing as this is a common name and lot of users use their real names in username

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

LMedicalCentre

Answer: Report to WP:UAA under Promotional username, if they make promotional edits to any page connected with their username domain. Otherwise ask them to change the username using {{subst:uw-username}} template

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Fuqudik

Answer: This seems like a case of Offensive/Disruptive usernames but I will wait to see at least 1 edit from this user account, as to whether their intent is trolling/disrupting WP or its AGF case of non-Anglosphere user. In the former case report to WP:UAA and in the latter case, politely explain to them why their username may be seen as offensive or disruptive by other users and ask them to change their username

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

ColesStaff

Answer: Report to WP:UAA under Promotional username, if they make promotional edits to any page connected with their username domain. Otherwise ask them to change the username using {{subst:uw-username}} template

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

~~~~

Answer: Misleading username, feels like signature for all editors and hence report to WP:UAA

. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

172.295.64.27

Answer: Misleading usernames, making others feel like its an IP address and hence report to WP:UAA

. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Bieberisgay

Answer: Offensive usernames, possibly also Usernames violating the BLP policy and hence report to WP:UAA

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Roller26, See Assignment 7 above. Stay safe and bes. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:, completed the assignment. Check it at your convenience. Thanks. Roller26 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Roller26, See comment above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Progress test[edit]

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[edit]

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: If its unsourced, then the I will consider it as vandalism as the intention can be to defame and policies on BLP are pretty strict.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

Answer: WP:BLP and WP:V

.WP:LIBEL as well. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{subst:vandalism1}} if its their first vandalism, or higher level as per the existing warnings on their talk page and other vandalism evidence from their contributions.

. or {{uw-defamatory1}}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The user has now added offensive words to the article 3 times. You have reverted three times already, can you be blocked for violating the three revert rule in this case?

Answer: No, WP:3RR doesn't apply for reverting obious vandalism

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{IPvandal}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: IP user continuing with their vandalism after enough warnings, diffs of their vandalism

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 2[edit]

You see a new account called "Hi999" that has added random letters to one article.

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

Answer: Good faith edit, as most probably its just a test edit for a new user who is unsure about the effect of their edits on the project.

. or test edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{subst:uw-test1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Rollback-AGF (Green)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The user now has a level 3 warning on their talk page. They make a vandal edit, would it be appropriate to report this user to AIV? Why or why not?

Answer: Unless the user has committed a pretty serious case of vandalism, I will give them the 4th level of warning. If their commit vandalism after it, then I will report to AIV.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes, if they are vandalism only accounts or keep on committing vandalism instantly after they are unblocked in numerous cases.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{vandal}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Either "Vandalism after final (level 4 or 4im) warning given" or "Evidently a vandalism-only account" depending on the situation

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 3[edit]

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: Rollback (Blue) option as they are blantaly promoting themselves.

. It is not good faith as they knew they were linking the wikipedia as a "Spam link", Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

Answer: {{subst:uw-advert1}}.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?

Answer: Yes, G11

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes, {{subst:uw-coi-username}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: The above username comes under Promotional usernames and hence I would report it to UAA

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Roller26, See Assignment 8 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:, finished the progress test assignment. Check it at your convenience. Thanks. Roller26 (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Roller26, See comments above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

Congratulations now for the next step. The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced vandalism fighters to revert vandalism with the click of one button. Please read WP:Rollback.

Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.

Answer: Rollback may only be used: In very obvious vandalism cases, edits by a topic banned editor, malfunctioning bot or on own user page

Answer: Rollback may NOT be used: In any AGF case or when we want to leave an non-automated (non-template based) edit summary

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?

Answer: In that case, we should manually revert with the edit summary saying that it was a mistake. In accidently rolling back a good faith edit, one should make a dummy edit and explain in the edit summary.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: No. Automated summary without beingg able to change it comes along with using the rollback tool.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Roller26, See assignment 9 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:, I had read the WP:Rollback in advance. Kindly check it at your convenience. Thanks. Roller26 (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Roller26, See above comment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Monitoring period[edit]

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.

Roller26, Greeting. The next phase of this course is Assignment 10 - "monitoring period", see above and notes below. Pls make about 30 counter vandalism edits so I may check. Final exam will follows after the monitoring period. Do raise any questions if you have any. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:, more than 7 days have elapsed. I have also made a good number of vandalism edits for you to go through. Thanks. Roller26 (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Roller26, You vandalism related edits seemed no issues however, when there were some RPPs should not be requested. If there one or two editors keep on vandalize a page, we would revert and send warning message on their talk page and lead up to a block and we dont RPP the page. We only RPP the page if (1) multiple editors vandalize the page usually in short period of them minutes to hours (2) low volume but persistent vandalsim occur over a period of time, days or weeks. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Notes

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

Final Exam[edit]

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (15%)[edit]

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: Assuming good faith for new editor, I would give them level 1 warning {{subst:uw-test1}}.

Answer 2: After the first warning, I will have to assume that its vandalism and go with level 2 warning {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} and higher with next issues until reporting them to WP:AIV after their vandalism after level 4 warning.

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: After the first warning, I will have to assume that its vandalism and go with level 2 warning {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}.

Answer 4: Go with level 3 warning {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} and higher with next issues until reporting them to WP:AIV after their vandalism after level 4 warning.

5 & 6. A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?

Answer 5: If the page is about John Smith then {{subst:uw-npov1}}, otherwise {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}.

Answer 6: After the first warning, I will have to assume that its vandalism and go with level 2 warning {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} and higher with next issues until reporting them to WP:AIV after their vandalism after level 4 warning.

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

Answer 7: Assuming good faith for new editor, I would give them level 1 warning {{subst:uw-talkinarticle}}.

Answer 8: After the first warning, I will have to assume that its vandalism and go with level 2 warning {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} and higher with next issues until reporting them to WP:AIV after their vandalism after level 4 warning.

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

Answer 9: Check the sourcing to determine if its correct. If the user is wrong then warn them with level 1 {{subst:uw-delete1}}, otherwise do nothing.

Answer 10: After the first warning, go with level 2 warning {{subst:uw-delete2}} and higher with next issues until reporting them to WP:AIV after their vandalism after level 4 warning.

Answer 11: For an experienced user, I would talk to them on their talk page to understand their rationale and also explain my reasoning. However if they continue the behavior without any reasoning or reaching consensus, I will treat them like above and also consider {{subst:uw-3rr}} warning and reporting to WP:ANEW in case more than 3 reverts was used within 24 hours on the same article.

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

Answer 12: Removing unsourced content is not considered a vandalism and hence I would leave them alone.

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

Answer 13: Check the sourcing to determine if its correct. If the user is wrong then warn them with level 1 {{subst:uw-delete1}}, otherwise do nothing.

14. An IP user adds My parents do not love me. I going to jump out the balcony and kill myself", what would you do?

Answer 14: I would report the physical harm threats to Wikimedia foundation staff by email (emergency@wikimedia.org) or by clicking Special:EmailUser/Emergency and also contact the admin discreetly and not on high traffic admin boards.

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

Answer 15: I would report the physical harm threats to Wikimedia foundation staff by email (emergency@wikimedia.org) or by clicking Special:EmailUser/Emergency and also contact the admin discreetly and not on high traffic admin boards.

Part 2 (15%)[edit]

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

1. A user blanks Cheesecake

Answer 1: {{subst:uw-blank1}} or higher level if already recent warnings are present.

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

Answer 2: {{subst:uw-attempt1}} or higher level if already recent warnings are present.

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

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

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

Answer 4: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} or higher level if already recent warnings are present.

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

Answer 5: {{subst:uw-delete1}} or higher level if already recent warnings are present.

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

Answer 6: {{subst:uw-test1}} for new user or higher level {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} if already recent warnings are present.

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

Answer 7: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} or higher level if already recent warnings are present.

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

Answer 8: {{subst:uw-biog1}} or higher level if already recent warnings are present.

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

Answer 9: {{subst:uw-blank4im}}, its appropriate in this context.

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

Answer 10: Report to WP:AIV for vandalism after 4th level warning.

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

Answer 11: {{subst:uw-upv}} and starting a section on ANI with {{subst:ANI-notice}} on the user talk page to make them aware of the ANI discussion.

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

Answer 12: {{subst:uw-image1}} or higher level if already recent warnings are present.

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: Its a personal attack and hence report them to ANI with {{subst:ANI-notice}} on the user talk page to make them aware of the ANI discussion.

14. A user adds "Italic text to Sydney

Answer 14: {{subst:uw-mos1}} or higher level if already recent warnings are present.

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

Answer 15: Due to it being a serious BLP violation, I will start with {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} or higher level if already recent warnings are present.

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
Example	Unsourced	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
16	Test edit	[71]	The user in their very first edit wrote the line "is an Italian professional" in Italian, clearly showing it to be a test edit. Warned them with level 1 warning {{subst:uw-test1}} [72]
17	Test edit	[73]	The user in their very first edit left a space boo and ks in the word "books" and moved to the next line, clearly showing it to be a test edit. Warned them with level 1 warning {{subst:uw-test1}} [74]
18	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[75]	Report to AIV [76] Block Log [77]
19	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[78]	Report to AIV [79] Block Log [80]
20	WP:NPOV	[81]	Gave the user level 1 warning {{subst:uw-npov1}} [82] as its the very first edit of the user and states the subject to be one of the greatest ever without any source. Normally such claims require multiple RS from experts in the subjects.
21	WP:Fringe theories	[83]	The user was trying to put the article under the category of "pseudoscience". I gave them the Level 1 warning for incorrect categories {{subst:uw-badcat}} [84]. The user then undid my revert and pointed me to rationwiki page. I reiterated that rationalwiki is not an independent RS and the bar for classifying something as pseudoscience is pretty high and asked them to start the discussion under the talk page. They started the discussion and 1 user clarified to them that the "unimpeachable sources required to back up such definitive categorisations" are not present right now [85]
22	WP:SPAM	[86]	Gave the user level 1 warning {{subst:uw-advert1}} [87] as its the very first edit of the user for promoting a spam link of a non notable organization in the article in bold font. I also reported the username at UAA under promotional and the username giving the impression of shared usage.
23	Talking on the article	[88]	Gave the user warning {{subst:uw-talkinarticle}} [89] as the IP seems to be asking the question on the article whether it's a good school or not.
24	Unsourced	[90]	Gave the user level 1 warning {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} [91] as the entire statement for unsourced. The original sources in the article only contain their stats and doesn't talk about their advertising deals.
25	Vandalism	[92]	Clear vandalism, hence gave them level 1 warning {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} [93]
26	SPAM	[94]	Gave the user level 1 warning {{subst:uw-spam1}} [95] as its the very first edit of the user for promoting a spam link of a non notable organization in the external links.
27	Vandalism	[96]	Clear vandalism, hence gave them level 1 warning {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} [97] as replaced one of the most famous persons nicknamed The Rock with a red linked.
28	Vandalism	[98]	lear vandalism, hence gave them level 1 warning {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} [99] as they placed the case name as "Dustin used as resource".
29	SPAM	[100]	Gave the user level 1 warning {{subst:uw-spam1}} [101] as its the very first edit of the user for promoting a spam link of a non notable organization in the external links.
30	Vandalism	[102]	Clear vandalism, hence gave them level 1 warning {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} [103] as they placed their own user name in place of Big Boss.

Part 3 (10%)[edit]

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: CSD G11:Unambiguous advertising or promotion {{Db-g11}}

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

Answer 2: CSD A7:No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events) {{Db-a7}}

3. Joe goes to England and comes home !

Answer 3: CSD A7:No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events) {{Db-a7}}

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

Answer 4: CSD G3:Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes {{Db-g3}}

5. Fuck Wiki!

Answer 5: CSD G3:Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes {{Db-g3}}

What would you do in the following circumstance:

6. A user blanks a page they very recently created

Answer 6: As per "If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request" I will tag it with CSD G7:Author requests deletion {{Db-g7}}

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

Answer 7: Warn the user with {{subst:uw-speedy1}} and restore the CSD tag as the creator of the page cannot remove the CSD tag

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: Warn the user with {{uw-afd1}} and then restore the AfD tag

Answer 9: Warn with higher levels and finally report to WP:AIV if it continues after 4th level warning

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

Answer 10: CSD G13:Abandoned Drafts and Articles for creation submissions {{Db-g13}}

Part 4 (10%)[edit]

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: Report to WP:UAA under promotional username in case they edit their band page, other ask them to change their username as it implies shared usage by using {{subst:uw-username}} on their talk page

2. Poopbubbles

Answer 2: Unless from their edit history we can prove a case of vandalism, I will do nothing

3. Brian's Bot

Answer 3: Misleading username, feels like bot account and in the case they are not an approved bot account, then report to WP:UAA

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

Answer 4: Unless from their edit history we can prove a case of vandalism, I will do nothing

5. Bobsysop

Answer 5: Misleading username, feels like admin and in the case they are not admin, then report to WP:UAA

6. 12, 23 June 2012

Answer 6: Disruptive username, feels like timestamp confusion other editors and hence report to WP:UAA

7. PMiller

Answer 7: Unless from their edit history we can prove a case of WP:IMPERSONATE, I will do nothing as this is a common name and lot of users use their real names in username

8. OfficialJustinBieber

Answer 8: Misleading username, unless can be confirmed that they are actually representing the singer, I will report to WP:UAA

9. The Dark Lord of Wiki

Answer 9: Unless from their edit history we can prove a case of vandalism, I will do nothing

10. I love you

Answer 10: Unless from their edit history we can prove a case of vandalism, I will do nothing

Part 5 (10%)[edit]

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: For reverting obvious vandalism one is exempt from WP:3RR, otherwise not.

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

Answer 2: They can be reported to WP:AIV with vandalism only account marked and hopefully providing diffs of their most egregious vandalism

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

Answer 3: WP:ANI is the preferred location in this case, however first resolving the matter either on the user talk page or the relevant talk page should be pursued. However if that doesn't work, then one can pursue the matter on ANI with providing brief description of the issue, relevant diffs and notifying the user on their talk page of the ANI discussion.

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

Answer 4: WP:UAA with description of the policy they are breaking and a brief note if further explanation is needed.

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

Answer 5: WP:ANI with providing brief description of the issue, relevant diffs and notifying the user on their talk page of the ANI discussion.

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

Answer 6: WP:ANEW with page name, user names, relevant revert diffs, and the user talk page warnings.

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

Answer 7: WP:BLPN with providing article name, brief description of the issue, relevant diffs.

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

Answer 8: WP:SPI with providing brief description of the evidence, relevant diffs, user and suspected socks.

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

Answer 9: WP:RPP with page name, problem, level and duration of protection needed for resolving the issue.

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

Answer 10: WP:ANEW with page name, diffs and users involved.

Part 6 - Theory in practice (40%)[edit]

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

Answer 1: Toy Story 2 Pending changes protection Requested Protection Diff

Answer 2:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 Pending changes protection Requested Protection Log

Answer 3:Álvaro Morata Semi-Protection Requested Protection Log

Answer 4:Casualties of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war Semi-Protection Requested Protection Log

Answer 5:The Gateway Pundit Semi-Protection Requested Protection Log

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

Answer 6: Good faith edit: [104], the user's first edit was to bolden the first paragraph of a section. I assumed good faith and warned them with {{subst:uw-mos1}} on their talk page as they were very new user with first edit [105]

Answer 7: Self-revert test edit: [106], the user self-reverted random words they had written on the article. I warned them with {{subst:uw-selfrevert}} on their talk page as they were very new user with just few edits [107]

Test edit: [108], as its was their very first edit, it seemed that they by chance deleted a single ']' in the category, rendering it useless, I warned them with {{subst:uw-test1}} [109]

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

Answer 8:

Answer 9:

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

Answer 10 promotion: G11 - 3rd entry and Deletion Log

Answer 11 copyvio violation: G12 - 20th entry and Deletion Log

Answer 12 copyvio violation: G12 - 15th entry and Deletion Log

Answer 13 Your choice: U5 - 5th entry and Deletion Log

Answer 14 Your choice: U5 - 6th entry and Deletion Log

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

Answer 15: User:ID Bazaar UAA Report Block Log

Answer 16: User:Bestiptvbeast12 UAA Report Block Log

Answer 17: User:Vihsbeverages UAA Report Block Log

Answer 18: User:SCCBCollege UAA Report Block Log

5th User: User:Brit.corporation UAA Report Block Log

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

Answer 19: Edit warring creates a bitter environment for the project to function, creates negative attitude for involved users amongst each other, makes reaching consensus and a practical route harder to reach and consumes lot of time of lot of users who may have to get involved to diffuse the situation.

Answer 20: When two or more users disagree on some content and go back and forth reverting each others contribution rather than reaching a consensus on the talk page, it leads to an edit war.

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

Answer 21: It affects actual living people and can damage their reputation, breach into their privacy, peddle false accusations against them and can make the project liable for litigation cases.

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

Answer 22: Without overtly engaging, give them appropriate warnings till level 4 and then report to AIV or in case of egregious vandalism directly report to AIV under vandalism only accounts. Reporting to ANI is also an option in case of personal harassment.

Answer 23: Trolls thrive on getting recognition and not giving them any is the best course of action.

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

Answer 24: The former only users autoconfirmed or confirmed users to edit pages and is applied to pages having high edit rate which attract high amount of persistent vandalism and disruptive editing from IPs and new users. The latter allows only admins to edit the page and is applied to to extremely visible pages (like Main page), very heavily used templates (where even minor disruption in these can put the entire project in bad light) and mainspace articles in cases of major edit warring or content disputes amongst extended confirmed users, particularly for sensitive topics.

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

Answer 25: Having harmonious relations between all users is the core principle in retaining active users and even attracting new users from all round the world. Personal attacks dissuades users to leave and newbies to not join in the first place, spiraling the project downwards.

Roller26, See Final exam above. Make sure to provide all hist diff (report, results of the reports, version, editor's talk pags and etc.) All the best! Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Roller26, Hi I am not sure you have received my message above and the final exam questions, as it has been posted for about a week now and you have not work on it yet. Let me know if everything is all right. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I was on wiki-break for 2 weeks. I have started working on the test and will hopefully finish it in a few days. Roller26 (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Roller26, Ok Thank you for letting me know. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have completed all questions except for 3 practical questions. I am not finding their examples. I request to check the rest of the questions in the meantime. If I am able to answer those 3 questions by the time you finishing checking, then you can check them too. However, if I don't find the answers, then mark them incorrect. Kindly check it at your convenience. Thanks. Roller26 (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Roller26, All the questions are required to answer. I will wait until you have all them answered prior I review them. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have answered one more question. Only questions 8 & 9 in part 6 - 3RR violation has not been answered. I have spent good time fighting vandalism without coming across 3RR violations. I request you to review the test with marking those 2 questions as incorrect. Thanks. Roller26 (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Roller26, Let me know when you have answer 3RR questions (note you need to send 3RR warning message to the involved editors and only if they make the 4th revert edit then you can report them), then I will review the exam. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Roller26, Good day. 3 weeks has past, have you had a chance to spot 3RR and report them yet? If reporting them is difficult as they editors invovled need to make the 4th edits within 24 hours in the same page after receiving the 3RR warning, then, pls provide the evident they have revert 3 edits on the same page within 24 hour on the same page (edit warning) where you have placed a 3RR/edit warning template on the involved editors talk page. Weekend especially at night time in USA time zone, you would find some 3RR or edit warning happen. Let me know if you need any help. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Roller26:, Here is one of the editing warning you can use for your answer - see here - Greek Football Cup. Just place edit warring template - see Template:Uw-3rr for EW template. Do note that edit warring does not have to be reverting the same page within 24 hours but as long as the involved editors keep on reverting the content back to the previous content for a period of time without stoping the reverts and discuss it on the talk page to get a consensus agreement. Merry Christams and Happy New Year. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Happy New Year! Can the edits and reverts of Catholic Church in Poland come under 3RR? Roller26 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Roller26:, There are 3 reverts by 2 IP editors on that page; however since the max revert for one of the editors is only 2 times, we cant send a 3RR warning notification to them. The page is under protection at the moment. If you find any 3 revert from the same editor, then place a warning notification on their talk page, I will accept it even they are not been banned if they dont make the fourth revert on the same page within 24 hours but I will only give you half the point. Since this is the exam, I would need to at least try to get one 3RR notification send out. You have come a long way and only one answer short of 100 questions. Pls dont give up and try to find one. Weekends is the best time to find some 3RR as there are many. Happy new year and stay safe. Best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)