User:Joseywales1961/CVUA Training record

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/Joseywales1961.

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.

Read through Wikipedia:Vandalism, bookmarked, looks like this will need to be re-read a few times and continuously referred back to. Also read Diffs. Joseywales1961 (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

Enabled Twinkle and read WP:Twinkle Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism

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

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

Answer: A good faith edit is something added (or taken away) from an article where the editor believed (maybe in error) that they were improving the article but in fact they maybe added something that was unsourced or controversial to a BLP for example. An act of vandalism is where the editor knowingly adds or removes content which could be something like the addition of nonsense, or juvenile humour, vulgarities or blanking of sections or articles. In a lot of cases you could tell them apart by properly reading the article and seeing what was changed and figuring out why (look at external references), then by checking the editing pattern of previous edits of the editor or IP, look at their talk page for previous warnings (you might have to look at the talk page history in case it was blanked) you could also be wary of a new account which may be just unfamiliar with the system and so it it preferred to assume good faith. Some pages, such as football club or politicians articles, would be very prone to attempts at vandalism by supporters of rivals, particularly following a bad result for the rivals. Joseywales1961 (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

. I like the fact that you would 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) 09:04, 4 May 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) 09:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

(2) [2]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

(3) [3]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

Answer:

(1) [4]

. You could have place a vandalism warning on the editor talk page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that now, back when I made that edit I was relatively new to serious editing even though I had an account for many years Joseywales1961 (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

(2) [5]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

(3) [6]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961 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. Ping me here when you are done and ready for review. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia Attempted the above for review whenever you get time please Joseywales1961 (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961 Well-done and see comments above. Let me know if you have any questions. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cassiopeia, I'm ready to try the next batch at your leisure :) Joseywales1961 (talk) 11:03, 4 May 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 editors to let them know that they have violated a policy so that they will hopefully learn from the gentle warning at level 1 through to stricter warnings and possible block. We should remember that new editors may not be familiar with policies and it would be helpful to include a polite note from ourselves with a wikilink to that policy such as please read about adding sources to a Biography of a living person here WP:BLP.

. Good. The purpose is to "educate" the editors on constructive editing, especially those who are new to Wikipedia and to "deter" them of such actions with stronger warnings leads up to a block. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer:

As 4im is an only warning it should be reserved for when it is clearly a bad faith edit and the editor or IP has built up a continuous record of disruptive editing. That record might have been built up over a short period of time such as a vandalism only account, as someone with an on-off or mildly disruptive record would have got the lower level warnings already.

. Right. 4im is only for widespread and particularly egregious vandalism and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:33, 8 May 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, it should be used always so that the message on the users talk page does not change even if the template you used were to be altered at a later date. This is done by adding {{subst:template name}} instead of just the template name.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer:

I would then take the editor or IP's case to WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism and thoroughly explain my case against them (to include Diff's) so that the Admin has all the evidence in place and could make a quick decision.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:33, 8 May 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.

Comment, I'm not sure if you meant 3 levels in each of i, ii and iii so for now I'm giving a level 1 of 1 type of warning in (i), a level 2 of a different template in (ii) and a level 3 of another different warning type in (iii) - hope that is what you were looking for.

You read it correctly. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer i:

Hello, I'm Joseywales1961. I noticed that you recently made an edit in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

The above example is a level 1 warning for an innacurate edit summary i.e., perhaps the editor said "fixed a typo" when in fact they did that and added a few words also.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii:

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

In this example it was obviously vandalism and the user would have had a Level 1 warning already on their talk page (and as "subst" was used I could add in a diff if necessary).

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii:

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you may be blocked from editing.

In this case an article has been proposed for deletion through WP:AFD, an editor (most likely the creator in this case) has removed the AFD tag and there are levels 1 and 2 warnings for this activity of their talk page already.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961 See assignment 2 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll need to take a few days here with work commitments coming up this week, I'll ping towards the weekend Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961 Ok thanks for informing. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Good morning (it is in Ireland anyway). Please see my attempt at this part of the training and my comment at question 5 which I can revise if I took it up wrong. Best wishes Joseywales1961 (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961, Well-done. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready for next assignment. Stay safe and good night (here in Australia). Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cassiopeia this is very interesting so far, I think I'm ready to move on whenever you are Joseywales1961 (talk) 13:39, 8 May 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.

STiki

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

Huggle

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

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

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

Assignment

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]	A first edit by an IP, they just added the word hello with no edit summary (I thought possibly a juvenile) I welcomed them with Twinkle then added {{subst:uw-test1}} to include the page they edited.	Y even thought a hug chunk of content was removed, I believe it was removed accidentally when the new editor typing "hello". Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
2	Test edit	[8]	First edit by an IP added two digits to a year. Welcomed with Twinkle the warned with {{subst:uw-test1}} to include page they edited.	Y. This would be the typical test edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
3	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[9]	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 [10] 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 [11]	Y. Well done!. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
4	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[12]	Newly created account, welcomed and given level 1, 2, and 4 warnings by me (level 3 by another editor) Warnings so sent to AIV for their next edit, using Twinkle in all cases here. The user was very quickly indef blocked by an admin.User page block Block log	Y. Good work. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
5	WP:NPOV	[13]	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}}.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
6	WP:NPOV	[14]	A first edit by an IP that is probably related to the school in question, lots of peacocking the school such as "the leading choice" and further down "families living outside our attendance boundaries" gave {{subst:uw-npov1}} and added an explanation of what they should do (including sourcing what they add)	Y. Editor stated "I am proud to say that our schools are filled with caring and competent educators who are dedicated to student achievement..." which means it is a WP:COI editor which we would place a COI warning message on the editor talk page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
7	WP:SPAM	[15]	It seems more difficult to find Spam being introduced into an article using recent changes so I looked around a few areas I would be familiar with, this IP inserted a commercial link into the article so I reverted but in this instance was not able to add warning as the IP had subsequently been blocked since they made the edit (see IP's User Talk I wasn't sure if I should create the user talk in this case as they were blocked, perhaps you could advise?	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
8	Talking on the article	[16]	The page that was edited was a redirect, where they added a lot of their own talk - This was also a first edit by an IP so I gave a level 1 {{subst:uw-disruptive1}} - It took a couple of days to find something resembling talk in an article coming up on recent changes, I was not sure what template to use as I couldn't find one for "talk" - it was surely disruptive and most likely naive vandalism from a fan - I opted for disruptive -perhaps you could let me know.	Y - That was a long monologue. warning template for talking on article can be found Single-level templates section. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
9	Unsourced	[17]	A new IP editor added information about a person in the academy that was not sourced. Firstly welcomed the new user with twinkle then added {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} notice which I amended to include the article they edited.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
10	Vandalism	[18]	3 edits in a row adding childish rubbish to an article (I initially only reverted back 2 edits by mistake) welcomed and used level 1{{subst:uw-vandalism1}} amended to include page vandalized	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
11	Vandalism	[19]	Plain old vandalism I thought, used level 1 {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} amended to include page vandalized	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
12	Vandalism and Misleading Edit Summaries	[20]	This was vandalism and as they had made 2 edits in a row I had to use Twinkle to revert back 2, used twinkle to add warning level 1. Also in this case the edit summaries (both) said "fixed typos" so gave a level 1 {{subst:uw-mislead1}} for misleading edit summaries	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
13	Creation of a vandalism only page in draft space	[21]	User created a silly vandalism page in draft form, used Twinkle to tag page for CSD G3 as it was obvious vandalism and it was deleted a few minutes later by an admin. Notified user [22] via Twinkle that their draft article had been nominated for speedy deletion. In this instance I had looked through the Special:Log/newusers for blue links in the contributions as suggested above.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
14	Vandalism	[23]	Addition of nonsense into the article, I believed they knew what they were doing as they had been able to create an account. Welcomed with Twinkle and used level 1 {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
15	Unsourced	[24]	Addition of unsourced matrerial just before a reference (it was not supported in the reference when I checked), Welcomed with Twinkle and used level 1 {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}. I was torn between test edit and unsourced on this one as it was a first edit, but the username is quite similar to the article name and they were adding in a few family members so I figured they knew what they wanted to add - but the source (that was already in place) didn't back up what they added.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961 Good day. If Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. I use both Twinkle and Huggle (a better tool and a preference which is a user right tool ) and you can apply at the when you have graduated from the program. Cheers. 09:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cassiopeia I will probably need a week or so to do this, also I removed Assignment answers 1 & 2 from another student you had last year (SpicyMilkBoy) that were pasted above my assignment no 3 - they are available in the page history if you need to paste them somewhere else - hope thats ok. For this assignment I will use the Special:Recent Changes and Twinkle as I don't have access to Stiki or Huggle JW 1961 Talk 12:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961 OK Thank you for letting me know. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia sorry for pinging earlier, I think (hope) it's ready this time, at your convenience. Best wishes JW 1961 Talk 21:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961 Well-done!. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Cassiopeia - could you advise me reference question 7 - if the IP or User is blocked should I create their talk page to add a warning - it would seem to me if they are indef blocked there would be no point but if it were a short block they might get up to their old tricks as soon as the block ended? - Can start next assignment from after the weekend at any time that suits you. Best wishes from a rainy and windy "summer" day in Ireland JW 1961 Talk 11:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC) - PS thank you I found {{subst:uw-talkinarticle}} that would have been better in question 8 JW 1961 Talk 11:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

:Joseywales1961 Q7 - Admin placed ranged blocked until 2 July, 2020 - seehere. You dont need to place any message since they are being blocked. Many editors will come back and do more vandalsied edits when they had previously faced a short blocked. We will only know after the block expatriation date. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Shared IP tagging

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Joseywales1961, 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. Cheers. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia I have read the above pages, thank you JW 1961 Talk 22:42, 22 May 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: Because they thrive on getting recognition for whatever harm they have done to Wikipedia and by engaging with them we only encourage them to make more negative edits, post profanity on our talk page etc., . They are usually looking to provoke us into a response any sort of conversation at that point then feeds their ego.

good. The main point/goal of the trolls is that they want attention. We dont feed them and dont get mad by denying them the recognition that they seek is critical to countering them. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:21, 25 May 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: I think that sometimes a good faith editor may also be quite upset that their edit of what they thought was improving the article was reverted (as we all likely would), but after a polite and calm reply or a couple more messages to and fro working on their query things can be worked out. An obvious troll will probably have a poor edit history (if any at all) and will most like be more crude, use profanities and/or vandalise your talk page. I think it is always quite useful when reverting and warning to have a look at their past edits - a long standing good contributor who made one silly mistake adding wrong information (maybe at the time they thought it was correct) is unlikely to turn into a troll - to help in your decision whether it's a troll, a good faith editor or even something like a new user test editing.

I like that you would look at their contribution log and talk page to see the behaviour of the editor 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) 05:21, 25 May 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: If I were to ever encounter this threat I would:

a. If it were a threat against me and I thought that I was in immediate danger I would firstly contact my own local police station (dial 999 in Ireland)

b. All threats (including the above) are to be notified by email to emergencywikimedia.org or if email is enables in my user account simply click on Special:EmailUser/Emergency

c. I would include in my email, the article or user page where the threat was made and a diff(s) of the edit(s) making the threat

d Then I would discreetly contact an admin with the same details avoiding using public Admin Boards such as WP:AIV

e Finally I would request oversight to have the threats supressed at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:21, 25 May 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: As in my first answer, it may seem to me to be an empty threat but that decision is made by Foundation staff, although in this case I would probably skip the step of contacting the local police.

.Contact. emergencywikimedia.org. - see Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:21, 25 May 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: All forms of sock-puppetry are designed to deceive other users/admins and take the form 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"

All forms of Sock Puupetry are to be reported to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

. Do note when we report a SP, we need to include evident (hist diffs) and justifications. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Joseywales1961, see Assignment 5 above. Btw I have removed the cat you added as it will be for those who have graduated from the academy. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Cassiopeia I misread that and thought it was for students. I will start the assignment around Tuesday, thanks JW 1961 Talk 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Joseywales1961, I dont quite understand what you meant, but the above is an assignmennt. Ping me when you are done. Stay safe. best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Cassiopeia I was trying to add {{Category:Wikipedians in the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy}} to my own user page but had three windows open in Firefox and added to this page in error. I'll wait and see if I pass the acadamy before adding back (to my own user page this time) JW 1961 Talk 10:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Joseywales1961, OK thanks for informing and no worries. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, done earlier than I expected (not much to do at the weekends in these strange times) Best wishes JW 1961 Talk 22:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Joseywales1961, see above comments and let me know if you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Cassiopeia, Ready whenever it suits you JW 1961 Talk 14:56, 25 May 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

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

Answer: To prevent IP's and New Users from editing a page that would have a high level of vandalism. Also to prevent edit wars from New Users and IP's. This protection is also applied to some templates that appear on important pages.

. Semi-protection applies to pages that constantly attract a large amount of vandalism. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

: Answer: This is for infrequently edited pages that have attracted minor level vandalism consistently over time. This protection still allows IP's and New Users to edit that page, but their edits don't go live until a Recent Changes Reviewer approves them.; Y. the key is low volume vandalism but persistence over a period of time (a few days to a few weeks). Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: This is for when a page is constantly being vandalized even by auto/extended confirmed users. Also it is applied to highly visible pages like the Main Page, templates that are used on highly visible pages. As a result only Admins can edit these pages.

. Full protection prevents anyone except administrators from editing the page.. This applies when there is serious disruption that cannot be addressed by using a lower level of protection or blocking the involved users, such as due to large scale edit warring or content disputes, or persistently being vandalized by users who have gamed the extended confirmed system. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: The creation of a page is "Salted" when editor(s) keep creating the same article with similar content when it hs already been deleted, maybe even a few times, when the article is clearly not notable enough to stay on Wikipedia. Some page creations that may be rude or inappropriate are also creation protected.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: An Article talk page is rarely protected except in cases of extreme vandalism. User Talk pages are most often protected when they experience vandalism or abuse, usually from trolls or upset editors that have been reverted for performing vandalism on articles.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 31 May 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: Pending changes protection requested for Latinx due to recent IP vandalism My request subsequently Pending Changes protected for 1 Month (Admin reply to my request) (Article history at time of being protected)

. Very good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: Pending changes again requested for a BLP Stan Lippmann due to IP vandalism My request subsequently pending changes protected for 2 days (Admin reply to my request). (Page history at time of being protected)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD. Done

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

Answer: When an article would clearly not survive a deletion discussion at AFD, MFD etc., and when it clearly fulfills one or more of the criteria for Speedy Deletion as outlined in the guidelines - most commonly G1-G14 general criteria, A1-A11[no A4 or A8] for Articles and U1,2,3 & 5 for offending User Pages. The R (redirects), F (files), C (categories), T (templates), P (portals) & E (exceptional) categories are for other types of pages/files etc., that a anti-vandalism editor would be less likely to encounter.

. A little more explanation/elaboration would be what I expected. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 31 May 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: A Promo example tagged as G11 with Twinkle [25] this time it was a userpage used as an advertisement User:AM Squared Ltd. The link to the G11 tag no longer works as very shortly after being tagged an Admin deleted the user page here [26] The user was also indefinitely blocked for infringment of username policy and promo policy - see Block log. (While I was tagging this page with Twinkle another user simultaneuosly tagged it for G12 Copyvio)

. Well-done. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: A Copyvio example tagged as G12 with Twinkle [27] article about a music group almost completely word for word from an external website [28] checked with Earwigs Copyvio detector. In this case the Admin didn't delete the article but removed the copyvio, reducing the article to a stub and hid the revisions Admins actions on Revision History, Admin redacting edits to Article Another admin then moved the page into the Draft space [29] as it was by then undersourced without the copvio content I had tagged.

. Since the copyvio content was suspressed for that I can see the copyvio content against copyvio detected outcome. When a big chunk of the content is in violation of copyvio then the page will CSD deleted; however if a small portion of the content is in violation of copyvio, then we could removed the copyvio content and request for WP:REVDEL instead. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: A Previously deleted "autobiography" tagged with A7 Non-notable musician [30] User notified [31] Admins deleteted page [32]

. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer iv: Another "autobiography" of a non-notable musician (we seem to see a good few of these!) tagged A7 and G11 with Twinkle [33] user notified [34] and then warned re removal of CSD tags [35] Admin deleted page Deletion log

. Good work. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961, See Assignment 6 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Cassiopeia Looks like this one might take a week or so to get non-disputable examples for CSD, I'll ping when done. Best wishes JW 1961 Talk 09:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961, You can find promotion and copyvio pages at new page patrol and article for creation. For other CSD only find the in new page patrol section -- important. Best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Cassiopeia for the tips, although I have been in a few AFD discussions and nominated a couple of articles for CSD, it's a relatively new area for me. I just want to make sure I don't hastily tag something that turns out to be wrong. I'll need to read those articles a couple of times and watch what others are tagging for a couple of days before I'd be happy to do it myself (unless of course that I see a real obvious one straight away). Best wishes JW 1961 Talk 11:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia I'n not finished this for a while but need your advice - please see me example in the PROMO question above in this case I requested CSD G11, the page was not deleted but the Draft was declined (for the same reasons as my CSD) is that sufficient or do I need to find a page that actually gets deleted? Thanks and best wishes JW 1961 Talk 10:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961, Pls provide article name - so I could check and pls see the notes section below. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia the article was found on AFC feed - Draft:Alpkit you can see in this diff that the Draft page rejector agrees but wants to see if it can be improved Diff JW 1961 Talk 11:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961, Thank you for the hist diffs. The draft is a promotion piece. With all the CSD. copyvio and promotion are particular serious and that is the reason why copyvio and promotion in draft can be nominated for CSD. (note majority of CSDs are not applied in Draft space). The editor is one of the patroller who removed the tag. You tag was correct as per the his diff you provided as I will do the same as well. Try to look for other article and see if you can find one. Thank you. see notes below. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback Cassiopeia, I'll ping you in a few days when I've completed this assignment, stay safe JW 1961 Talk 09:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia Assignment ready for you to check when you have the time. Thank you JW 1961 Talk 23:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961, See review above. Good job! Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia Thanks for the review, could you give me feedback on my answer to Q3 in the promotion section? I'm ready to move on whenever you are. JW 1961 Talk 09:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961, Sorry to miss Q3. See review above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, stay safe JW 1961 Talk 11:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Notes

G11 (promo) - What constitute a G11? At times it is hard to define. Although if a article is blantly promote or adverstise about the subject then it is a G11. Sometimes, the it is a little subtle and that would be a judgement call. As a rule of thumb, if article about an entertainers (actor/singer/DJ/artist and etc) in dept of how hard they work, how motivated they are, using all the puffery/flowery languagues and especially the subject does not meet notability guidelines. For a corporation, we would see they list down all they product/services, their directors/key person in the company, they mission, their client, they are the influencer in their industrial, all the words/phrased to enhance/market the company and no substantial info that is supported by independent reliable sources. If you look at the this version of Zapp Scooters which you tagged G11, I have to agree with the editor who removed the tag that it is not a G11 and unsourced info can be removed.

G12 (copyvio) -

Copyright violation addresses the use of original expression without permission of the holder which is a violation of laws even the credit is given to the source. For articles, the Copyright Law gives the copyright protection to the “original works of authorship fixed in in a tangible medium of expression” in the newspaper, magazine and freelance article at the moment of their creation, for the life of the creator plus 70 years after, and 95 years for corporation publication or 120 years from date of creation, whichever is shorter.

A “fact” is not considered an original work of authorship; but how the ways facts are recorded where the style of the writing, choice and/or arrangement of words are copyrightable. An infringement of copyright is committed when a person uses the “exact words /almost exact words in a consecutive manner” of the author/holder. To note, as a guideline, a few words copies from the original works and an idea of expression such as "weather the storm", 'crossing the Rubicon" "as dead as a doornail" and etc. proper nouns, document/event/treaty/person/title/ names are generally acceptable and so is a direct quote of speech. However, any longer phrases which would be expression in a number of ways are copyright protected. To use one of two short sentences on a large article generally is ok but it will considered infringement if the edit entry is consists of big percentage of the original work and yet for some (such as newspaper/press/journalism that takes their work very seriously - anything more than 4 exact consecutively words would considered copyvio). To avoid copyright infringement, one needs uses his/her own words to convey the source’s information. Paraphrasing could minimise the the copyright violation; however, "threshold" ultimately, court judgement would determined the if copyright violation has been made.

Copyvio for texts or images shared the same notion that it is not a copyvio if the verbatim texts or images are taken from free licence and Public domain sites/specific page/image. I have indicated to you on Assignement 3 - section 3.3 - Q5, Q6, Q7 that always check the "original source" even if in WikiCommon the editor who upload the image claim taken from a PD site, we need to check the link provided and if the site indicate the image taken from another source, then we check the source. For texts, we need to check the sites if it is a PD, sometimes the disclaimer of PD is not on the page, but on the home page or "about" page or FAQ page. Secondly, for older article (no in NPP Feed), any copyvio texts found, we will revdel it as it is almost always it is not the first versions. If a small amount of verbatim texts found in NPP Feed articles, we would revdel them; but large amount of verbatim texts we will tag G12.

Lastly, here are a few examples where the German car maker Audi was sued for copyright breach.

1. Audi infringed copyright violation over Eminem’s song “Lose Yourself” in their commercial advertising. [36]

2. Audi was fined US $ 965,000 over copyright infringement for using 10 words from Brian Andreas’s story of “Angel of Mercy” - [37]

I think I just had a wake-up call, and it was disguised as a car, and it was screaming at me not to get too comfortable and fall asleep and miss my life. (Audi commercial) Some people don’t know that there are angels whose only job is to make sure you don’t get too comfortable & fall asleep & miss your life.(Brian Andreas’ print)

Hope the above help. Note the above doest not substitute the Wikipedia links I provided above. Please make sure you read the reading material as well. Thanks.

Usernames

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

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

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

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

DJohnson

Answer: Well this one is 50-50 it could be someone named D Johnson as that is a common surname in the anglosphere or it could be someone prentending to be someone famous such as actor Don Johnson. I would have to see how they edited. If they started editing the actors page adding rubbish for instance it would be a misleading username and I would report them to WP:UAA, if they made good edits on a range of articles the username would be ok.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

LMedicalCentre

Answer: This would be an obvious breach of promotional usernames and should be reported to WP:UAA if they started making or editing the medical centre page in a promotional way. If they were making innocent edits they should be advised just to change the username using {{subst:Uw-username|Reason}}

. "Violation of the username policy as a username that implies shared use". Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Fuqudik

Answer: The one is probably a deliberately mis-spelled profanity and would be against both offensive and disruptive username policies. I would report immediately to WP:UAA.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

ColesStaff

Answer: This username would imply that the user is a member of the staff of a company called Coles. It could also imply that there is more than one user member of staff using the account. The account might be editing promotional or introducing spam links to the Coles Company article or creating one if it didn't exist. I would see if they started that type of editing and if they did report the violation of WP:Username policy#Promotional names to WP:UAA if not, I would consider asking them to change username because the staff part of the name would still be inappropriate using {{subst:Uw-username|Reason}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

~~~~

Answer: I don't think this username can be created. But if it were possible this could cause problems as the four tildes are meant for signatures so I would call it a disruptive username and report it to WP:UAA

. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

172.295.64.27

Answer: Again, I think this username would be disallowed at the creation stage, but if it got through, this is another disruptive name as they would be pretending to be an IP and should go to WP:UAA

. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Bieberisgay

Answer: This would be both offensive and disruptive and I would think it's going to be a vandalism only account who would try to disrupt the singers article, probably breaching BLP guidelines. This one should go straight to WP:UAA

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961, See review Q3 on Assignment 6 and Assignment 7 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, the above answers are ready for your review whenever you have time. Best wishes JW 1961 Talk 12:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961, See review above. Good work. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Progress test

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

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

Scenario 1

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

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

Answer: I would consider it to be vandalism. Because it is a BLP, they would have added somthing not reflected in any reliable sources.

.intent is to defame a person without source. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

Answer: WP:BLP (verifyability) because they added information which is not backed up anywhere. It would also be an clear breach of WP:VANDAL as they are trying to defame the singer.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: If this was their first act of vandalism I would use {{subst:vandalism1}}, if more edits were vandalism I would give level 2,3,4, 4im or report to WP:AIV whichever they were by then due. I could also consider using {{subst:uw-biog1}} but in this case not strong enough as the intent looks like it was to defame.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 June 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, this does not apply in this case as I was reverting obvious vandalism.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{IPvandal}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: I would give the IP number, page vandalized and the diff(s) to WP:AIV stating that they violated WP:BLP both by adding the defaming material and it was (obviously) not cited.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 2

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

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

Answer:I would treat it as good faith as it is a new account, probably unsure how to edit or edit testing.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: I would use {{subst:test1}} after welcoming the new editor.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 June 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: I would use Rollback-AGF (Green)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 June 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: Not yet, I should normally wait until they have level 4 and offended again after that warning, unless it was a very serious offence.

. Report if and only if it is considered vandalized only account with extremely office edits. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes, if it were to turn out to be a vandalism only account.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: in this case it would be {{vandal}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: In this case I would include username, page(s) vandalized, diffs and that all of their edits were vandalism so that the Admin might consider imposing the indef block.

. includes "Vandalism-only account" Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 3

You see a new account called "LaptopsInc" which has created a new page called "Laptops Inc" (which only contains the words "Laptops Inc" and a few lines of text copied from the company's website). The user also added "www.laptopsinc.com" on the Laptop article. You research Laptops Inc on Google and find that is a small company.

Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option would you use?

Answer: I would use Rollback (blue) option as they are trying to promote themselves. It is not good faith as they knew they were linking the wikipedia article to their own website to try and gain hits.

.It is a "Spam link". Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

Answer: I would use {{subst:uw-advert1}}.

or

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. . Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 June 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 I would tag under multiple CSD - G11 for advertising and G12 for copying the text from www.laptopsinc.com.

.Only G11 as for G12 we need the content info to know if copyvio is violated. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 June 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 I would leave {{subst:uw-coi-username}} as the username implies that they are a representative (or a group of represenatives) of the company.

and ==Speedy deletion nomination of PageName==

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on PageName, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. . Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes I would report as it violates the Promotional username policy.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961, See Assignment 8 above. Cheers. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cassiopeia I'll ping again in a few days when done JW 1961 Talk 10:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia Assignment 8 is ready for you to check, thanks and best wishes JW 1961 Talk 10:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961, See above review. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Rollback

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

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

Answer: Rollback may only be used when there has been obvious vandalism and when it is clear that this is the reason why I am reverting. I can use it also on my own user page(s), to revert accidental edits I made on any page, to revert banned or blocked user who are trying to evade their ban/block and to revert widespread edits of a user or bot that were misguided or malfunctioning (in this case I have to explain on the talk page).

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer: Rollback may NOT be used when I need to supply reason(s) for reverting, nor should it be used for good faith reverts, content disputes, where there has only been one editor editing the page since creation, or for removing content I disagree with.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?

Answer: I would manually revert myself (I would find it best to use Twinkle) so I could leave an edit summary explaining that I had used rollback by mistake, as rolling back the rollback may cause confusion to other editors looking at the page history. If I accidently rolled back a good faith edit I should make a dummy edit and explain in the edit summary what I had done, it would also be a courtesy to inform the user talk page of the error and rectification.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: No, as the rollback tool provides its own short edit summary and does not give you the opportunity to amend or add to it.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961, See assignment 9 above. Cheers. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Cassiopeia should have this one done tonight or tomorrow JW 1961 Talk 15:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia Assignment 9 is ready for review, thank you JW 1961 Talk 20:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961, see above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Monitoring period

Congratulations! You have completed the main section of the anti-vandalism course. Well done! Now that we've been through everything that you need to know as a vandal patroller, you will be given a 7-day monitoring period. During this time, you are free to revert vandalism (and edit Wikipedia) as you normally do; I will monitor your progress in anti-vandalism. If there are any issues, I will raise them with you and if you have any problems, you are free to ask me. After seven days, if I am satisfied with your progress, you will take the final test; passing this will mean you graduate from the CVUA. Good luck!

If you have any problems or trouble along the way please leave a message on below this section. If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look.

Joseywales1961, Greeting. The next phase of this course is Assignment 10 - "monitoring period", see above. Cheers. Pls make about 30 counter vandalism edits so I may check. Final exam will follows after the monitoring period. Do raise any questions if you have any. Stay safe and thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Cassiopeia do you want me to supply the diffs of the 30 edits and warnings placed? Best wishes JW 1961 Talk 10:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961 I will check your contribution log. However, I could not check them all if you have hundred of counter vandalism edits. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That's fine I'll stop at around 30 for this week JW 1961 Talk 11:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961 You 7 day monitoring period has shown no major issues. See below you Final exam question. All the best and pls note the below. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Notes

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

Final Exam

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (15%)

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

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

Answer 1: I would consider that this was a test edit done in good faith as they might not be familiar with editing, welcome them and give them level 1 {{subst:uw-test1}}.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: I would then think that they knew what they were doing and consider it was vandalism and give {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}, {{subst:uw-vandalism3}}, {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} then report to WP:AIV if it continued after the level 4 warning.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

3 & 4. A user adds their signature to an article after one being given a {{Uw-articlesig}} warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?

Answer 3: I would then consider this edit as vandalism and start giving vandalism warnings {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} as there is only one level of {{Uw-articlesig}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 4: After that I would again give {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} and {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} then report to WP:AIV if it continued after the level 4 warning.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 5: Well there's a couple of ways this could pan out I think depending on if the article was about John Smith or maybe the user name was John Smith. Assuming it was neither of these then it would be plain old vandalism at level 1 for their first offence using {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}

. If the user named John Smith or the page is not about John Smith then vandal 1. However, if the page is about John Smith then it would be {{subst:uw-npov1}}

Answer 6: I would continue with {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}, {{subst:uw-vandalism3}}, {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} and WP:AIV if they persisted.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: First time I would assume good faith a say it's a test edit, welcome them and give them {{subst:uw-test1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 8: By the second time I'd assume they know what they're doing and give vandalism warnings {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}, {{subst:uw-vandalism3}}, {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} and up to WP:AIV if necessary.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 9: I would check the source and statement removed by the user, if they had removed a properly sourced piece of information then I would give them a {{subst:uw-delete1}}.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 10: I would then continue with {{subst:uw-delete2}}, {{subst:uw-delete3}} & {{subst:uw-delete4}} and then WP:AIV or WP:AN/I depending on whether it was vandalism (which it most likely was) or another type of disruptive behaviour. In this case I might have had to also think of WP:3RR if they were reverting my reverts.

. 3RR warning would only apply only when the editor revert the third time within 24 hours on the same article. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 11: An editor with a history of disruptive edits would most likely need be blocked for this behaviour, whereas if I discovered that the user was an established good editor I would open a conversation with them on their talk page and suggest that they explain on the article talk page what they think was wrong with the sourced information that they were removing.

. History and behaviors of the editor does provide some indication; however, if the removing of the edits are well-sourced and the editor keep on removing them after a few warning, we will treat their edits as vandalism. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 12: I would consider this a good faith edit. I would probably leave it alone, especially if it were a BLP as there shouldn't be unsourced information there anyway.

. Unsourced content can be removed from article. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 13: I would treat it the same as 9 & 10 above - check the source and statement removed by the user, if they had removed a properly sourced piece of information then I would give them a {{subst:uw-delete1}} then continue with {{subst:uw-delete2}}, {{subst:uw-delete3}} & {{subst:uw-delete4}} and then WP:AIV or WP:AN/I.

. I like your first reaction is to check the source as that is the right thing to do.09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 14: Report immediately to the email address emergency@wikimedia.org and privately contact an admin to make them aware, being aware no to use a public noticeboard.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: Restore my page and then report as above to emergency@wikimedia.org and again privately contact an admin. If I really believed I was in danger I would also contact my local police.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Part 2 (15%)

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

1. A user blanks Cheesecake

Answer 1: A warning would be appropriate, assuming it was their first offence I would give {{subst:uw-blank1}} or whatever level they deserved for subsequent offences up to reporting to WP:AIV

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 2: Assuming it was their first try I would put the warning {{subst:uw-attempt1}} (or higher levels/AIV as neccessary)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 3: There is a single level warning approriate here (with the option of adding the article name) {{subst:Uw-efsummary|Denis Menchov}}.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: I would put the warning {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} on the user page (or higher levels/AIV as neccessary)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 5: This time I would use {{subst:uw-delete1}} (or higher levels/AIV as neccessary)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

Answer 6: First time I would treat it as a test edit with {{subst:uw-test1}} but change to vandalism if done again with {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} (or higher levels/AIV as neccessary)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: If it were their first edit I would put {{subst:uw-test1}} if they already had warnings I would use {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} (or higher levels/AIV as neccessary)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 8: A warning is appropriate - this time I'd use {{subst:uw-biog1}} (or higher levels/AIV as neccessary) as they are adding to a BLP.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 9: In this case I would give them a 4im only warning {{subst:uw-delete4im}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: No warning this time as they have the max of 4, so report to WP:AIV

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 11: I would report this one to WP:ANI as I had previous difficulty with them, then I am required to let them know on their talk page that there is an ANI incident report about them using {{subst:ANI-notice}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 12: This image would be irrelevant to the article so I would use {{subst:uw-image1}} (or higher levels/AIV as neccessary)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

13. A user blanks your user page and replaced it with 'Idiot Nazi guy' just because you reverted his vandalism and he got angry with you.

Answer 13: I would think of this is harassment, revert it and report user to WP:AIV

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

14. A user adds "Italic text to Sydney

Answer 14: If this was their first time I would revert it but say it's a good faith edit and politely explain MOS on their talk page without a twinkle warning template.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: Because it's not just an unsourced addition to BLP {{subst:uw-biog1}} wouldn't be appropriate so I would put the warning {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} on the user page (and then higher levels/AIV as neccessary)

. Or higher warning level - vandal 2. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

#	Type	Diff of your revert	Your comment - If you report to AIV please include the diff	CASS' Comment
Example	Unsourced	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
16	Test edit	[38]	An IP's first edit added a few letters to the use my date section. Welcomed and warned with {{subst:uw-test1}}.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
17	Test edit	[39]	The IP changed number 1 to 7 and nothing else with no explanation, welcomed and given {{subst:uw-test1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
18	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[40]	This IP continued vandalism in spite of 4im warning, note in this case a few other vandal fighters were on the case and reverted before I could. There were other IP's also vandalizing this page (warned by other users) and yet another user requested page protection. The IP I reported was blocked Block log (together with others IP's and the page was protected).	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
19	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[41]	A new user vandalizing airline/airport pages reported to AIV [42], user blocked rapidly by admin Block log	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
20	WP:NPOV	[43]	Edit by IP called the named person "Quebecophobe journalist". I could also have classed as vandalism but It was a first edit so I went for milder {{subst:uw-npov1}}. A few minutes later I gave them {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} for re-adding the same words.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
21	WP:Fringe theories	[44]	This was an IP's first edit, added what was original research/their own opinion not in line with the article. Welcomed and given {{subst:uw-fringe1}} although in this case I could also have just said {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
22	WP:SPAM	[45]	A new user used their user page to advertise their company, in this case I chose to tag the user page CSD U5 & G11 (another user simultaneously tagged G11). User page was deleted U5 & G11 by admin and user blocked indef Block log	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
23	Talking on the article	[46]	New user adding commentary to the page, welcomed and given single level {{subst:uw-talkinarticle}}.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
24	Unsourced	[47]	A new IP added the name of another person to an article about a deceased 1990s revolutionary, suggesting the added person was an associate. Welcomed and given level 1 {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
25	Vandalism	[48]	The IP had made 2 consecutive edits to the article changing the description of the criminal to "Hero", welcomed with Twinkle and given {{subst:Uw-vandalism1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
26	Vandalism and unsourced added to BLP	[49]	Again 2 consecutive edits, this time on a BLP,, changing the name and a lot of information in the article. This IP had level 1 & 2 warnings in February (all their edits were on Chinese triad type articles at that time with no other edits since April) this time the BLP is about a US General so I guessed the IP may well be someone other than the last user and gave the benefit of level 1 {{subst:Uw-vandalism1}} and {{subst:uw-biog1}} as there was a lot of material added to the BLP.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
27	Unsourced	[50]	A new IP added 2 consecutive edits with unsourced material to the Ernst and Young article. Welcomed and given {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
28	Vandalism	[51]	Definitely not a test edit although it was the IP's first edit they added a vulgarity so given {{subst:Uw-vandalism1}}.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
29	Vandalism	[52]	2 consecutive edits by new IP, added vulgarity with the first, then messed with caption and date. Welcomed and given {{subst:Uw-vandalism1}}.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
30	Unsourced	[53]	A new IP added unsourced content to a BLP, this content of this edit could also have been tagged as vandalism but I gave the benefit of the doubt and warned with {{subst:uw-biog1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Part 3 (10%)

What CSD tag you would put on the following articles (The content below is the article's content).

1. Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)

Answer 1: CSD G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion {{Db-promo}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

Answer 2: CSD A7 No indication of importance (person) {{Db-person}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

3. Joe goes to England and comes home !

Answer 3: CSD A7 No indication of importance (person) {{Db-person}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: CSD G3 obvious hoax {{Db-hoax}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

5. Fuck Wiki!

Answer 5: CSD G3 Vandalism {{Db-vandalism}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

What would you do in the following circumstance:

6. A user blanks a page they very recently created

Answer 6: Such an action can be taken as a request for deletion under CSD G7 if they were the sole contributor to the page so I would tag G7 {{Db-blanked}}

. You also can send a message to the editor to confirm his action was meant to delete the page they created. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: I would restore the CSD tag then warn the user for removing it using {{subst:uw-speedy1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

8 & 9. A user who is the creator of the page remove the "{{afd}}" tag for the first time and times after that?

Answer 8: Restore the AFD tag and place warning {{uw-afd1}} on their user page.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 9: Continue with {{uw-afd2}}, {{uw-afd3}} & {{uw-afd4}} then WP:AIV

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

. Before tag CSD G13, pls make sure the page is no way could improve (adding source for the subject is notable and etc) first. If the subject is notable then make a dummy edit and place "postpone G13" on the edit summary before saving the edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Part 4 (10%)

Are the following new (logged in) usernames violations of the username policy? Describe why or why not and what you would do about it (if they are a breach).

1. TheMainStreetBand

Answer 1: If there were an article about The Main Street Band and they were editing it then I would report to WP:UAA as a promotional username. If no such article existed they should still be asked to change username as it implies shared use (the word band in the name).

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

2. Poopbubbles

Answer 2: This one looks like a childish attempt at humour and slightly offensive. I'd wait and see what their edits were like before taking it up with WP:AIV if they were a vandalism only account or the like.

. If they edits are constructive then leave them alone. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

3. Brian's Bot

Answer 3: This is a breach of Misleading Username as they are implying that it is a bot account. This one should go straight to WP:UAA if it is not actually an approved bot account.

. Do check their user page first so see if this isn't a legitimate bot account under the WP:bot policy. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

Answer 4: I can't see that it is really against any policy, it may be slightly disruptive and worth asking them to change their username. I would watch their edits as it looks highly likely to turn out to be a vandalism only account then it could go to WP:UAA or WP:AIV

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

5. Bobsysop

Answer 5: Misleading username that implies the user is an admin (I assume they are not an admin - but should check that first) I'd report to WP:UAA

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

6. 12, 23 June 2012

Answer 6: Dispruptive username as it would look like a time stamp on article history, so this one too should go to WP:UAA

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

7. PMiller

Answer 7: Not against any policy per se as it would be a common angloshphere name. But if they were editing an article such as the US politician Paula Miller then it could be a COI and such a warning should be given.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

8. OfficialJustinBieber

Answer 8: This one should go straight to WP:UAA as a misleading username, they are implying that they are the singer.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

9. The Dark Lord of Wiki

Answer 9: Not against any of the policies. I'd leave it unless their edits were vandalism.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

10. I love you

Answer 10: Not a violation but may make some funny warning templates like "Hello, I You You, the edits you made..." - I'd watch their edits here too just in case of vandalism.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Part 5 (10%)

Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.

1. Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?

Answer 1: If it is blatantly obvious vandalism then I wouldn't breach the 3RR rule for reverting it. However, I could violate the 3RRR if what I was reverting was not obvious vandalism, therefore I should be careful if I have to revert more than twice.

. 3RR applies to revert more than 3 times within 24 hours on the same article which are not blatantly vandalism edits. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 2: They should be reported at WP:AIV for vandalism if they have have a received level 4 or 4im warning and continued vandalism after that warning.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

Answer 3: Report this type of abuse at WP:ANI including diffs of the problems, notifying the user that there is an incident open regarding them at ANI.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: at WP:UAA stating which policy they are breaking.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 5: These should be reported at WP:ANI, include diffs and notify the user on their user talk page.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 6: An edit war should be reported to at WP:ANEW and you would include page name, diffs of the reverts, the user talk page warnings and article talk page showing if there was any attempt to reach a consensus.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: These violations of BLP would be brought up at WP:BLPN Include article name and problem.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 8: Report this to WP:SPI, report the user and suspected sock(s) with evidence spelled out clearly and the diffs that imply the accounts are connected.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 9: Page protection is requested at WP:RPP. Include the page name, the problem and which level and duration of protection you are requesting (can be done easily using Twinkle)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: Report this behaviour to WP:ANEW providing page name and diffs.

. I think you meant "their" instead of "this". Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Part 6 - Theory in practice (40%)

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

Answer 1: On article Na Jae-min temporary pending changes requested as a variety of IP's had disrupted the page over a few days My RPP the admin semi-protected the page here higher than I requested as I hadn't noticed that it had just came off protection (I only judged by the last few days that I could see in the edit history) - I will keep this in mind for future.

. Note: pending protection is for those articles are persistently vandalized by editors in low volume over a period of time (a few days to a week usually). Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 2: On article Scarlet macaw semi-protection (temporary) was requested - My RPP, Protection log

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 3: On article Patrisse Cullors requested temporary pending changes My RPP Again, this one was protected at a higher level than I requested Protection log - looking at the current list on RPP, the admins will change the levels up or down when protecting on quite a lot of requests.

. Note: pending protection is for those articles are persistently vandalized by editors in low volume over a period of time (a few days to a week usually). Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 4: On article FaceApp semi-protection (temporary) was requested my RPP, Protection log

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 5: on article Robbie Neilson semi-protection (temporary) was requested - my reason for semi rather than pending is this football manager had recently changed clubs and the article was attracting rival vandals (10 reverts as of now on today alone 22 June) and this happens quite a lot on these type articles my RPP, article was semi-protected by admin Protection log

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 6: A Good Faith edit by an IP but it was mis-spelled and not sourced my revert and user talk notice

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 7: A Self-revert test edit, a new user 1st edit changed date, self reverted with their second edit welcomed with twinkle and given single level {{subst:uw-selfrevert}} here (in between my twinkle message welcoming and self-revert notice they had made more edits and been given warnings for vandalism by another user and were later again blocked as vandalism only account)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Third answer: A test edit, first edit by this IP changed 1 letter in a word my revert. Welcomed and given {{subst:test1}} user talk notice

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 8: On article Nadar (caste) Warned on user page here, reported to WP:ANEW here user notified of noticeboard discussion concerning them here. Result Page Semi-Protected for 6 months

. page protected instead the usual blocking the editor. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 9: The nearest I could get to another 3RR during my time under your instruction is this one I was preparing in my sandbox pasted below, I did not come across much that hadn't already been reported to ANEW or had the users already blocked at AIV, I hope this is acceptable as a 2nd example to show I understand how 3RR reporting and warnings work:

User:178.9.202.230 reported by User:Joseywales1961 (Result: )

Page: Battle of Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 178.9.202.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (multiple changes as more back and forth reverting outside of the 24 hour period)

Diffs of the user's reverts: (these were the reverts with 24 hour period that I was watching)

1st revert
2nd revert
3rd revert

(any subsequent revert within 24 hours would breach 3RR)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[54]

The IP blanked the user talk page and an admin who was also an anti vandal patroller gave another 3RR Warning here (which they blanked as well). That same admin fully protected the page during the night (in my time zone) and so nothing to report to WP:ANEW this time. I would have used {{subst:AN3-notice}} on their userpage to notify them if they were reported.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

If applicable

Comments:

3RR is violated but no edit from the edited after the warning as the page is protected. I gave a yellow tick as the question request a report and the editor is blocked/admin's decision. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 10 promotion: A new user page User:NotAyKay being used to promote an artist named AyKay, tagged G11 my CSD tag deleted within seconds by admin Deletion log

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 11 copyvio violation: Another new User page User:Witzblatt, this time they copied Jeff Bezos bio from this website changed Bezoz name to presumably their own resulting in 85.6% copyvio, so tagged G12 my CSD Tag. This page was deleted by an admin Deletion log

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 12 copyvio violation: An article in draft space Draft:Bestforlives, already tagged as promotional but showed 65% copyvio from this website at time of CSD G12 tagging my CSD tag, deleted by an admin Deletion log

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 13: Another Promotional use of userpage on User:Saguaro Books, LLC, tagged with G11 my CSD tag which was deleted by admin Deletion log Note I could also have reported this username to WP:UAA as promotional but it was already deleted fairly quickly and the admin noted the username also.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 14: Rejected AFC published by a user with similar name Albert Salim. Tagged with CSD A7 as non-notable person and G11 promotional my CSD tag] (COI notice also given to creator in this case Notification of COI) deleted by an admin Deletion log

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Btw: Here is your CSD log - User:Joseywales1961/CSD log. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: User:Peepeepoopoopiss, my report to UAA for a breach of offensive user name (pee poo and piss are childish vulgarities in British and Irish English), user blocked by admin Block log

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 16: User:GenericDiagnnoLab, my report to UAA for vilolation of the promotional username policy, this user promotoed a similar named company on their user page, user blocked by admin Block log

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 17: User:FuckThaPoliceFuckThaPolice, my report to UAA for offensive username. User blocked by admin then also blocked from editing own user talk Block log

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 18: User:Kanhacorporation, my report to UAA for an promotional username, has edited userpage adding promotional link. Admin blocked user Block log

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

5th Answer: User:NashPR, my report to UAA for promotional username, their sandbox (at the time of nomination) contains the start of an article that may be PR work. User blocked by admin Block log

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 19: Edit warring is prohibited firstly because it is disruptive, other editors trying to meaningfully edit the article may get their content deleted in the back and forth reverting of the edit war. It also causes animosity between the involved editors causing them to be unlikely to reach any consensus and wastes the time and effort of editors who, for instance, patrol recent changes or have the article on their watchlist.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 20: The edit war is usually caused by 2 (or more) editors having a disagreement over what should be included in the article. Instead of discussing those additions or deletions from the aricle on the talk page (or dispute resolution) they start a back and forth action of reverting each others edits.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 21: Vandalasism on BLP's is considered very serious because it can cause harm to an actual living persons privacy and their work, it can damage their reputation meaning that they may sue for libel.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 22: Keep giving the warnings up to level 4 without engaging outside that, then report to AIV if it were that kind of harassment, report them to ANI if necessary.

. If anything needed to explain, reply with guidelines and mechanically manner without engaging in the troll Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer 23: Per WP:DENY just don't give them the attention they so badly desire

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 24: Semi protection prevents IP's and new accounts from editing the page and pages fully protected (high risk pages) can only be edited by admins.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer 25: They can cause bad feelings between the editors and can be upsetting, maybe even causing one of the parties to retire. Therefore they are disruptive to the smooth running of the project.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961 See Final exam above. All the best! Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Cassiopeia - I'll have to take a while on this one, ping you when done, best wishes JW 1961 Talk 11:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961 Pls read the "Notes" section at the bottom of Assignment 10 (monitoring period). Best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cassiopeia I have read your notes at the bottom of Assignment 10 JW 1961 Talk 11:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, please see my final exam attempt - I will now wait and bite my fignernails until I hear back. Best wishes JW 1961 Talk 19:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cassiopeia thank you for informing. Please give me a few days to review your final exam. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Final score

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage
1	15	14.5	15%	14.5%
2	30	30	30%	30%
3	10	10	10%	10%
4	10	10	10%	10%
5	10	10	10%	10%
6	25	23.5	40%	23.5%
TOTAL	100	98	100	98%

Completion

Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction! You have now graduated from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy and completed your final exam with 98%. Well done!

As a graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox (make sure you replace your enrollee userbox) as well as the graduation message posted on your talk page (this can be treated the same as a barnstar).
{{User CVUA|graduate}}:

Hi Joseywales1961 It's been a pleasure to work with you over the past few months. I hope you gained something from this CVUA program. Do download WP:Huggle if you havent as this is a great vandalism tool to use. You can request for Wikipedia:Rollback right here and do mention you have passed the CUVA and mention my name in case the admin need to verify. I use both Twickle and Huggle but they do not have all the warning templates install in the system. So when require, manually subst them. to Do drop by my talk page you have any questions as I am here to help. Best of luck, and thank you so much for your willingness to help Wikipedia in this role. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much Cassiopeia It was a pleaseure working under your instruction during which you explained everything very well to make it a very enjoyable course. Best wishes JW 1961 Talk 11:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Callanecc, who has graciously published his training methods on-wiki. As I thought his methods were of higher quality than anything I could achieve on myself, I used his materials for your training, with a few minor tweaks and additional questions.