User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Balon Greyjoy

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/Balon Greyjoy|talk page]].

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

How to use this page

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

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

`The start`

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.

Hi. Twinkle has been installed 27 May 2019.

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.

Ans: When discussing an issue with a fellow editor, be it related to possible vandalism, a stylistic choice, or an assessment they made, it is important to assume good faith in one another. While you may disagree with what they have done, it's unproductive to assume that there goal is anything but improving the article. This is especially true with new editors; while every effort should be made to welcome them, it will still be disheartening the first time their edit is reverted and negative feedback is given. Doubling down and insisting that their intentions were wrong in addition to their actions may give them the impression that Wikipedia is a hostile environment, and keep them from editing in the future.

In the case of vandalism detection, changes that may appear to be vandalism-like, such as a removal of a large amount of content, adding copyrighted material, or not using a neutral point of view, may be the result of an editor making an edit in good faith. They may legitimately feel that their actions have changed Wikipedia for the better, and they should receive feedback on how to improve their edits in the future, rahter than insinuations that they are trying to degrade an article. Vandalism, on the other hand, are edits made that no reasonable editor could view as an improvement to a page. Actions such as removing improvement tags, misdirecting links, altering photos, adding hoax information, adding meaningless words or profanity, and page blanking are all examples of vandalism; no reasonable editor would this information to an article and truthfully believe that they are improving the content on Wikipedia. Of course, there is not a well-defined line between the two. Edits such as adding incorrect information could either be hoax vandalism or an editor using an incorrect source with the best intentions of improving the article. A large amount of content may be deleted because a vandal wished to blank a section, or a reasonable editor felt that the section didn't belong in the article and removed it. While there are certainly edits that will fall neatly into each camp, it's important to try and assess the editor's intention as much as their action.

As mentioned above, my mental model for detecting vandalism will be to ask if an editor could have reasonably made the edit in question with the intention of improving the article. It's important to assess the context of the edits to further determine why an editor may have taken such an action. Additionally, I will consult WP:VANDALISM for guidance on what commonly is and isn't vandalism to get a frame of reference of what is commonly accepted on Wikipedia. If confusion still exists, I would check to see if the editor has a history of being warned about their vandalism. Most importantly, I would do my best to assume good faith, and only decide that the edit is vandalism when there is little doubt that an editor was not acting in good faith.

. Very well. This is the longest answer I have seen form CUVA participants

. 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; they key is their "intention". CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Please find and provide hist diff of five examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and five 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.

1. [1] The editor is lacking a NPOV, and is defensive of the article's subject. But it is not vandalism, and the editor is likely confused about what Wikipedia is and isn't.

. Note: if after giving multiple "Disruptive" warnings and editor repeating the same actions, a a block could be warrant by admin. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

2.[2] The editor is confused on what Wikipedia is not, and is using the Groupon page to leave a negative review. While it's not appropriate for Wikipedia, it is a good faith edit.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

3. [3] This current edit (not the previous edit made by the same IP editor) is an example of good faith editing. While the grammar change is incorrect, the editor presumably doesn't have negative intentions with the article (their previous vandalism notwithstanding)

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

4. [4] The editor was making edits that they could reasonably presume were improvements to the article. Replacing "size" with "fatness" and stating that they pressure of standing on a scale are mistakes that editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia could make in good faith.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

5.[5]] The editor possbily thought that the mention of the name "thiowater" was irrelevant when discussing hydrogen sulfide; there's no evidence for ill intent.

. I have not knowledge if "thiowater" has anything to do as the "possible" alternative name for the subject for such I would have to refer to your judgement. In general, if we the vandal fighter is not familiar with the edit made or could not able to check the the sources (as no sources are provide) then we will just leave it and wait for other vandal fighter or interested editors who have knowledge of the subject to deal with the edit. This especially apply to specific knowledge subject (mathematics/science/technical pages as well as sport/sportspeople statistics). CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

1. [6] Clearly vandalism; a large amount of text was replaced by gibberish, and the edit summary was "Fixed typo"

. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

2. [7] The vandal replaced substantive text with words that don't make sense in the context, and left an edit summary of "My ass"

. Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

3. [8] The vandal replaced text with an unrelated phrase.

. Removed sourced content without reason and place gibberish vandalism remark.Good. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

4.[9] The editor was replacing words with unrelated words about nonexistent events.

.

5. [10] Large blanking and replacing it with profanity.

.

Balon Greyjoy Good day. Any question regrading the assignment, pls let me know here. For other questions not relating to the assignments, ping me on the talk page of this subpage. See above the first assignment. Ping me here when you are done and ready for review. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Done!

Balon Greyjoy Greetings and well done! If you have any question of the assignment 1, then please let me know. If you have no question and ready to move on to the next assignment then please inform me. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Ready for my next assignment. Unfortunately, I'll be on the go tomorrow, so I probably won't be able to start for at least a day. Sorry for the delay! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Balon Greyjoy Thanks for letting me know. No worries. See below assignment 2 reading material and exercises. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

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

Please answer the following questions

Answer:

One of the most important things we can do when trying to correct a behavior is to provide feedback. While there are certainly disruptive edits that are knowingly made by an editor, we try to assume good faith with other editors, and provide guidance, rather than immediately calling for punitive actions. Warning provides editors with a tool to inform the disruptive editor that their actions are wrong, and that they need to change what they are doing in order to be a part of the community. The escalating levels of severity of warnings allows the community to remind the disruptive editor that they have continued to act outside of the norms of the community, and they they need to stop. Furthermore, should punitive action need to be taken, a list of warnings provides a "paper trail" to administrators to show that the disruptive editing has been repeated and problematic, rather than a single event.

. We warn editor is to inform them that their edits are nonconstructive or inappropriate under "Wikipedia policy/guidelines" and most importantly the purpose is to "educate" the editor what is constructive editing, especially those new to Wikipedia who might be editing to see if they could actually make an edit in Wikipedia. The warning serves to "deter" them of such actions with stronger warnings leads up to a block. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Answer:

A 4im warning is appropriate if a new user (or IP address) is making repeated and egregious vandalism edits. Instead of waiting for them to offend again to further elevate the warnings, this gives them their first and last warning, and clearly states that further vandalism will be reported to the administrators.

. Good. It is used for cease and desists widespread vandalism, especially for those cases the that is egregious in a short time frame. For those that less egregious, lower warning level should be used. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Answer:

Substitute templates should always be used to ensure that the inserted text and formatting remains the same, regardless of future changes to the template. It is used by adding "subst:" in front of the template name inside of the curly brackets.

. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Answer:

The offender should be added to WP:AIV by adding either the vandal or IPvandal template to the page, followed by the reason,which would be vandalizing again after a Level 4 or Level 4im in this case.

. Right - report to WP:AIV. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Answer i: Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

This would be appropriate for someone that is removing the maintenance tags on a page without the requested improvements being made and there isn't an explanation as to why it was removed (if the editor felt that the page had been mis-tagged). It's a quick reminder to the editor that their change has been noticed, but we assume good faith on their part.

. Do check their previous edit if the maintenance issues have been sloved as sometimes the editors would resolve the maintenance issue in one edit and then remove the maintenance tag in their later edit. In such the case, send a {{subst:uw-editsummary}} on their talk page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Answer ii: Please explain your contributions using a descriptive edit summary. Changing information on Wikipedia (such as numbers and dates) without explanation may be confused with vandalism. Thank you.

This would be appropriate if someone with a previous vandalism warning has continued to vandalize articles. In this case, with subtle vandalism, it isn't something like replacing a page with profanity or similar actions, but it is important that the disruptive editor realizes that their edits are possibly being construed as vandalism. In the event that they acting in good faith but are changing information without explanation, this may be a reminder to them to explain their actions on Wikipedia. If they are not working to improve an article, this is a reminder that their actions are noticed by others, and that punitive actions may occur if they continue.

. If an edit is considered vandalism then it is a vandalism edit irregardless it is considered subtle or serious vandalism - we go back to the editor's "intention" here and question if their edit is to harm Wikipedia or not. Your substitution is correct but application is not. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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

This template would be appropriate if the editor has an established history of trying to advertise through their Wikipedia edits. They either have no realized that they need to stop, or that they simply don't care. Good faith is not assumed for them, and they need to be told to stop committing their actions, as punitive measures are not far away should they continue trying to advertise on Wikipedia.

. Good.

@CASSIOPEIA: I have completed the second assignment. Assuming my answers all check out (I tried not to be so wordy this time), I am also ready for the next one. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Balon Greyjoy Good work. Do worry about lengthy answer. Write they way as you see fit. It is good to know your thoughts, reasons and application of the answer of the question. After all, it is how we apply the tools and guidelines given that matter and show our understating of the subject. See the comments I have made and let me know if you have any questions, or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: (5) Answer ii: Based upon your response and a little more critical thinking on my part, I'm confused about the Level 1 and 2 warnings for clear vandalism. As far as I interpret the levels, Level 3 is the lowest level where it is assumed they acted in bad faith, while Level 1 and 2 are more along the lines of (forgive the informal tone) "You're doing things that come across as vandalism; please stop or at least explain your actions." In the case of vandalism, where it is clear they didn't act in good faith, how are we supposed to treat Level 1 and 2 warnings? I understand that warnings can jump directly to Level 3, but I would hope there is still an application for Level 1 and 2. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: I had a question above that I'm hoping to get cleared up, but am otherwise ready for another assignment! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Balon Greyjoy Hi, Good question and I moved the question here. We could place any warning level as we see fit which appropriate/reflect the vandalized edit(s). For most cases, we start with level 1 then increase the warning level on substituents vandalized edits. However, for serious (such as physical personal thread and etc) and / or edits are egregious in a short time frame, we could use level 3 or 4 warning. Do note, if the warning template placed does not fully explain/state/suite the nature of the edits (vandalized edit or not) by the involved editor, we can always write a personal message to the editor along with the warnings message (in Twinkle you can add additional info/message on the template "Optional message" window) and / or as a additional message below the warning message or in a new section on the involved editor talk page as communication is the key. In short in EN Wikipedia, we have a flexible vandalism system to fight vandalism. (In DE Wikipedia, they have only 2 warning level system, after the first warning, they would report the vandal after the second vandalism edit made). See the next assignment below. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Tools

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

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

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

Twinkle

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

User creation log

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

Rollback

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

STiki

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

Huggle

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

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

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

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

#	Diff of your revert	Your comment - If you report to AIV please include the diff	CASS' Comment
Example	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
1	[11]	Reverted 1 edit by ClangaTheBanger identified as test/vandalism using STiki; posted that another school was better - gave {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
2	[12]	Reverted 2 edits by 73.33.192.13 identified as test/vandalism using STiki - gave {{subst:uw-test1}}	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
3	[13]	Reverted 1 edit by 2405:204:302F:5A01:6B74:8DCD:5243:8C71 identified as test/vandalism using STiki - gave {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	N Would consider {{subst:uw-unsourced}}. We go back to assignment 1, and question the "intention" of the editor/edit. Here I dont see the editor deliberately vandalized Wikipedia but provide unsourced content whic is different from the edit on #5 below. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
4	[14]	Reverted 1 edit by ABCKnowThem identified as test/vandalism using STiki - gave {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	N For unsourced content, it could be removed - see WP:PROVEIT, unless big chunk or whole page is removed then place {{subst:uw-delete}}. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
5	[15]	Reverted 1 edit by 80.32.105.34 identified as test/vandalism using STiki - gave {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
6	[16]	Reverted 1 edit by 203.187.194.230 identified as test/vandalism using STiki - gave {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	N Same as comment #4. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
7	[17]	Reverted 2 edits by 2606:6000:61C3:BB00:4DFD:61BE:5DA9:32B5 identified as test/vandalism using STiki - gave {{subst:uw-test1}}	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
8	[18]	Reverted 1 edit by 120.22.173.106 identified as test/vandalism using STiki - {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
9	[19]	Reverted 2 edits by 2A02:C7D:83D:4800:3055:A9CF:A048:B5E9 identified as test/vandalism using STiki; unsourced negative statement about a living person - gave {{subst:uw-biog1}}	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
10	[20]	Reverted 1 edit by 2A00:23C4:8841:E401:C49E:7E61:BC2:4D4 identified as test/vandalism using STiki; made unsourced controversial claim about a living person - gave {{subst:uw-biog1}}	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
11	[21]	Reverted 1 edit by 2001:8000:15C2:6400:E108:F2C8:DD40:C5AB identified as test/vandalism using STiki; removed unsourced information - gave {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
12	[22]	Reverted 1 edit by 2600:8800:5980:D8:8549:11B6:DC82:1488 identified as test/vandalism using STiki - user clearly vandalized a page with unsourced information about a murder. Gave {{subst:uw-vandalism3}}	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
13	[23]	Reverted 1 edit by 2607:FEA8:12C0:1764:5597:FAAD:55C1:B12 identified as test/vandalism using STiki - removed unconstructive information. Gave {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}	Y CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
14	[24]	User repatedly vandalized Mark Geiger, and I submitted them to AIV	Y Well done. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
15	[25]]	User had a vandalism history, including The Amityville Horror (1979 film), and I submitted them to AIV	Y Well done. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Balon Greyjoy Do download/install STiki if you havent. Note you can use both STiki or Twinkle tool whichever to suit you needs on template use as I dont think STiki has all the templates as Twinkle would have, and 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) and apply at the end of the program. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Hello, 2 things: I'm having some trouble finding individuals to report to AIV. Most of the warnings that I have left have also created the talk page, and the vandalism isn't egregious enough to report for a non-repeat offender (as far as I understand it). I'll keep on the lookout with STiki, which has provided me no shortage of vandalism to revert, but I expect it'll be some time before finishing the assignment. Any suggestions on finding more egregious vandalism that would lead to an AIV report (admittedly, I consider it a good sign that there is a lack of vandalism to report to the admins, but unfortunate for the assignment)? On the subject of repeat offenders, what is the policy on issuing a warning if their talk page is already showing a temporary block? I can understand not bothering since they are already blocked, but I also think it's good to leave a warning to maintain a record of corrections of their vandalism in the event that they vandalize again. Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Balon Greyjoy Good day.

(1) Finding vandalized edits - First, warning an editor does not confine only to egregious vandalism edits. Just adding a note on our previous conversation, those who vandalize in egregious manner would receive higher warning level such as lvl 3 or 4 which means we dont need to start the warning at lvl 1. For other not egregious vandalized edit (even only one with vandalized edit), we start which lvl 1/2 (use your judgement - we usually place lvl 1 for new or editor and the nature of the vandalize edit is not so serious. When you place the warning message on the vandalized editor's talk page, check and see if the IP is belong to a school/institute, if so, this means many editors use one IP to edit Wikipedia. Users in a school in particularly, would repeat more vandalism edits, so (a) repeatedly check their contribution log and (b) check the pages which they have vandalized recently. (c) stay about at 1-1.5 hrs doing vandalism work as most vandalized editors would repeat their actions within the time span. (d) if you see warning 4 (irregardless who placed the warning message) on the talk page of a vandalized editor and they are still online, then check their contribution log repeatedly for they might make another vandalized edit. (e) You could find a lot more vandalized edits on (US Eastern to Pacific Time Zone) Friday/Saturday night to early morning and Sunday when most people are off work/not in school. (f) check on sport events / players / fighters' pages (boxing, mma (UFC)) especially during (advertising spamming) and just after the match/game/bout (i) the result is somewhat controversy and (ii) a fighter got beat via a devastated knockout. (g) breaking news especially on celebrity pages. With the above suggestions, I believe you could find another report an AIV.(When you have user right to use Huggle, it would show how many warnings an editor has received as well as their recent edits)

It would be good if we have no AIV reports at all but the true is Wikipedia is open to all to edit irregardless the user is registered with Wikipedia or not, for such vandalism would always present in great numbers and you would notice for most of the active vandal fighters, the edits number is very high. When you are well-verse in doing vandalism work, you would able to find them easily and report some to WP:AIV.

(2) If a user talk page has been placed under temporary blocked, this means the user could only view/read Wikipedia but can not edit during the block period. Once the block is lifted (admin could issue 31 hours to 3/7/14/30 days or 6 moths/ or 1/2 years or indefinite block as appropriate to the user vandalism actions). So if a user makes an edit, it means the previous block period has been expired, place a warning message on their talk page if they vandalized Wikipedia.

Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Thank you for the reply. I just wanted to let you know that I have some unforeseen limitations on internet usage for the next 3 weeks (I'm staying at a hotel, and the internet is REALLY sluggish). I'll try to work through it, but Wikipedia editing and STiki can be frustratingly slow, especially during peak hours. I'll do my best to finish quickly, but I wanted to give you a heads up to ensure that you didn't interpret a lack of activity on my part as me abandoning CVUA. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Balon Greyjoy Thanks for giving the head up. Just a few notes here - do provide the "WP:AIV report" hist diff (in your comment column) as well as the normal "article" hist diff (in diff column) for " least two appropriate reports to AIV exercises". Secondly many CVUA participants find it difficult to find editors to report to AIV even about spending hours and days looking for it. Check out UFC 238 on June 8 (Early Prelim 5:15 AM +07 and main card 9:00 AM +07). The UFC PPV articles tend to be vandalized just before and in the beginning of the early prelim and if the co-headliners and headliners fight results ended in devastating fashion, then we would see lots vandalism. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA:I wasn't able to edit during the UFC event, but am still on the hunt to find some people to report to AIV. I'm curious if I am being too lenient with my reports? I just struggle to believe that after my hundreds of actions on STiki that I have yet to come across a suitable candidate. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Balon Greyjoy Good day. There are always many vandalized editors got report each day. Monday is the "low day" and there are bout 100 blocked editors in leverage. On average I would be able to find about 5 for an hour work (I use Huggle). You will find them especially nite time (US time zones), just need to be a little bit patient as every CUVA participants find 3 of the assignment particularly difficult and this is one of them. Ping me and let me know when you are looking for vandalism edits, and I will help you if I am on line. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Getting approved for Huggle really made a difference; I have completed the assignment. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Balon Greyjoy Hi, Good to know that you got your rollback approved as I usually would recommand CVAU participants apply just before the final exam. It is a lot more easy and better tool, IMHO for counter vandalism. See comments above and do let me know if you have any further questions before we proceed to next assignment. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Thanks for the feedback. I'm ready for the next assignment. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Shared IP tagging

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Balon Greyjoy See 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) 13:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Reading complete, ready for the next assignment! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users

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

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Answer: Trolls and vandals are looking for a reaction to, and validation of, their wrongdoing; they aren't just acting out of a desire to have something inappropriate/incorrect on a Wikipedia page. Emotionally responding and making a large and public confrontation with them is what trolls and vandals are hoping to get out of their actions. By posting on their talk page in a non-emotional manner, and subsequently reporting their actions to WP:AIV, they are quietly being dealt with without getting the "recognition" that they are hoping for.

. Very good. The trolls seek attention and recognition by refusing to react or engage emotionally with them. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?: Answer: A good faith user will likely have less personal messages when they ask about the revert. They may still address me personally if they are upset about the revert, but it will be more from the standpoint that I am inappropriately reverting their work. A troll will be trying to get a reaction out of me, and will be more inappropriate and offensive in their comment. This line can be blurred; my first step when deciding their intentions would be looking into their history. If they are a new user that has never been called out for vandalism, I would be more likely to assume they are a good faith user that is simply upset over a revert.; Y. For sure heck on the edit history and talk page would give us some idea of the editor "intention". The different could be subtle at times. A good faith editor might annoyed at you but a troll wants to make you annoyed. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Balon Greyjoy See Assignment 5 above. Cheers.10:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: All done! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Balon Greyjoy Well done. See my comments above and let me know if you have any question. Ping me if you are ready to more on to the next assignment. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Ready! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion

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

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

Ans: A page should be semi-protected if it is frequently vandalized by new and unregistered users. If there is no history to indicate that it is frequently changed by confirmed users and above, there's no reason to use a higher protection, as semi-protection will allow confirmed registered users to make contructive edits, while preventing unregistered and possible burner/sockpuppet accounts from vandalizing it.

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

Ans: Pending changes protection can be applied in similar circumstances to semi-protection. If an article is frequently disruptively edited, either with vandalism, BLP violations, or copyright problems, the page can be pending changes protected to ensure that unregistered editors have their edits reviewed before being displayed to Wikipedia at large. The advantage of pending changes protection on semi-protection is that it still gives unregistered and new users a chance to edit, while semi-protection does not. The disadvantage is that pending changes is a more-labor-intensive process, as it requires individual approval. For that reason, pending changes protection is an appropriate response lower volume disruptive editing.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Ans: If extended confirmed accounts repeatedly vandalize/edit war on a page, it should be placed under full protection, as semi-protection won't be a sufficient-enough measure to prevent it from continuing.

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

Ans: Creation of an article should be protected if the article title is offensive or spam. Titles that use offensive language or slurs are generally prevented, as well as titles that are intentionally misleading, such as "Add an article" and "Create a page."

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

Ans:

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

(1) Ans:

(2) Ans:

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should two pages be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?

(1) Ans:

(2) Ans:

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

(1) Ans:

(2) Ans:

Balon Greyjoy See assignment 6 above. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about CVUA; life has just been a little busier than I would've liked recently. Sorry for any delays! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Balon Greyjoy, Good day. Thank you for informing. Understand work and travelling from US to Japan takes up a lot of personal time and commitment as I used to business travelling when I worked in a Asia regional position. Have a wonderful day and cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)