User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Fehufanga

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/Fehufanga.

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

How to use this page

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

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

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

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

I have enabled Twinkle, and have read WP:TWINKLE

Good faith and vandalism edit

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

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

Answer: A good faith edit is an edit that is made in good faith or intention, but the editor may not have created that edit in full understanding of the Wikipedia policies or guidelines. For example, adding list items without using correct markup. Vandalism on the other hand, are made with the conscious intention of harming the encyclopedia. For example, adding vulgarities and profanities into an article. One of the most common ways to distinguish a good faith edit from a vandalism edit is to check the contribution history of the user.

. 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. Editor might edit adds incorrect or unsourced information and this does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal. Vandalism is a "deliberate attempt" to harm Wikipedia. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:46, 17 December 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.

Answer:

(1) [1]

Improper marking up, first contribution.

. Editor adding unsourced material.02:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

(2) [2]

Nonsense, but not necessarily malicious.

. Editor made the only edit so we cant read form the contribution log of their edits or info/communication on their talk page. As mentioned above, we ask yourself, what is the intention of the editor. Adding the word "image" is not a test edit either and it did not indicate in any way it has anything to do with the page. For such I will take is as "silly vandalism" edit or disruptive edit (note: On certain occasion, whether an edit is a vandalism/disruptive edit would be a judgmental call. We need to know vandalism related guidelines and experience in counter vandalism to make the call. Althought discruptive edits are not considered as vandslim edits but if editors continue to do the same edits after many warning messages have been placed on their talk page, they might be blocked from editing). Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

(3) [3] Also nonsense, but not necessarily malicious.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Answer: (1) [4]

Joke edit, also shown from past user contributions.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

(2) [5]

Repeated instances of adding non-encyclopedic material in the same page.

. Adding non-encyclopedic material might not be a vandalism edit such as unsourced info/non neutral point of view ([[WP:NPOV] and etc; however prolong adding unsourced material after many warning might also lead to a temporary blocked - I have warned an editor more than 10 times of unsoruced content for more than a year and they got block.) Cassiopeia^(talk)

(3) [6]

User contribution logs indicate that this user is only editing to advertise/promote a YouTube channel.

good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Fehufanga Good day. (1) 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. (2) Do note, you need to provide the hist diff as per diffs guidelines and not you usual hist diff link. (3) pls note (important) - do not revert more than 3 times within 24 hours on the same article unless the edits are absolutely considered blatant vandalisms for you will be blocked from editing. If you are not sure about the edits (whether it is a vandalism or not", pls do nothing and let other more experience/counter vandalism editors to take action. (5), pls note that the motto of CUVA is "Civility – Maturity – Responsibility." Welcome to CUVA. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Fehufanga Good day. Pls also elaborate each of your answer to justify/explain/e/reasons of your answers - (note: make sure you do the same for all the answers for all the Assignments). Also you need to ping the editor who you write a message to so they may receive a notification. When you have finished the assignment, pls ping me - see Template:Ping for instructions. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Alright, thank you for the heads up. I have added my explanations --

Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 01:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Fehufanga, See above comment and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move to next assignment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I'm ready to continue. --

Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮

Warning and reporting edit

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

Please answer the following questions

Answer: We warn users to educate them about their mistakes, and to deter them from doing the same thing again in the future. More specifically, warnings are used to guide good faith editors, and deter bad faith editors from making more harmful edits.

. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Answer: When a user has committed extreme acts of vandalism (eg. multiple instances of vandalism in a short time period), and no other prior warning has been given.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

−

Answer: Yes, this is done so that the actual markup of the template is pasted onto the source, instead of the {{template}} itself, because templates are subject to change. To substitutes a template use {{subst:name-of-template}}.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Answer: The user should be reported to WP:AIV.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Hello, I'm Fehufanga. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

This level 1 notice is used to tell the editor that the one or more edits they have made appeared to be of promotional nature, for example, including a link to a travel agency under the external links of an article about a city. Level 1 warnings assumes good faith.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: {{subst:uw-npov2}}

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

This level 2 warning is used to discourage the editor from adding non-neutral POVs in an article, such as unattributed opinions. This is issued after a level 1 notice is already issued. Level 2 warnings assumes no faith.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: {{subst:uw-bes3}}

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use inappropriate or abusive edit summaries, you may be blocked from editing.

This level 3 warning is used to warn the editor to stop using inappropriate edit summaries, such as using vulgarities, all-caps, or personal attacks. This is issued after level 1 and 2 warnings are already issued. Level 3 warning assumes bad faith.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Fehufanga See assignment 2 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: For assignment 5, do I have to use {{Tlsubst|...}> only, or do I have to include the actual (substituted) template as well? --

Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 10:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Fehufanga, For question 5 - use (example) {Tlsubst:uw-vandalism1}} subs three different templates (different warning and different level of warning}} see example below. Stay safe and best

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.

Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I have answered question 5. --

Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 05:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Fehufanga, Reviewed. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Tools edit

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

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

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

Twinkle edit

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

User creation log edit

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

Rollback edit

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

Huggle edit

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

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

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

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

#	Type	Diff of your revert	Your comment - If you report to AIV please include the diff	CASS' Comment
Example 1	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[7]	Already had up to level 4 warnings today on this article from other users, so straight to AIV My report to AIV Thankfully they were very rapidly blocked by the admin [8] Later, the admin hid the edits made by this editor - see User Contributions so the diff in 3rd column no longer works unfortunately - see also admins deletion log [9]
Example 2	WP:NPOV	[10]	Added their own opinion "...well known for causing trouble" about a protest group, this editor already had level 1 NPOV warning today, so I gave a level 2 {{subst:uw-npov2}}.
1	Test edit	[11]	It seems that they were trying to add links to other wiki articles?	N. Test edit is edit made by new editor on their first or second edit. Test edit is the edit when the new editor "trying to see if they could actually make an edit in Wikipedia". Examples, (1) editors add/remove a letter from a word (and sometimes they revert their own edit on the second edit which we call those edit a "self-revert test edit". (2) add "Hi/Hello" or "test". If editor continue to make such edit in several pages or after receive a test edit messages then we would deem it is a vandalism edit or disruptive edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
2	Test edit	[12]	Changed the infobox which results in it breaking.	N. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
3	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[13]	User made edits that are nonconstructive towards communism-related articles, including replacing certain words with "criminal". Behavior reported to the AIV here, administrators responded swiftly with a block	Y. Do provide the revert vandalism edit you made hist diff next time. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
4	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[14]	Blanked the page Contemporary R&B twice previously. Reported to the AIV board here, responded swiftly	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
5	WP:NPOV	[15]	Opinion stated as a fact.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
6	WP:NPOV	[16]	Saying "the best anime" without quoting it as an opinion isn't a neutral POV.	Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
7	WP:SPAM	[17]	Added a link to a website for Indian jobs. Did the same thing again after a level 1 warning.	Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
8	Talking on the article	[18]	Using article as a discussion page, not suitable for article's talk page either, as that's outside of Wikipedia's scope.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
9	Unsourced	[19]	A lot of text was added, but there was no citation to back it up.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
10	Original research/Medical advice(?)	[20]	WP:MEDMOS, WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:MEDICAL all indicate that Wikipedia shouldn't be a source of medical advice. This edit introduced medical advice to treat back pains. I'm not sure what to warn the user with, so I opted for original research. The user made a similar edit before (which was reverted). I'd love to hear your comments on this one.	N. There is no source to indicate it is from a site where the original research is added. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
11	WP:NPOV	[21]	Opinion cited as fact.	Y. Good. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
12	Joke edit	[22]	Replaced section title with a personal name in all caps.	Y. it is a vandalism edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
13	Joke edit	[23]	Added "sexy" for no reason, and is irrelevant to the disambiguation page.	Y. it is a vandalism edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
14	Joke edit	[24]	Added nonsensical words that don't relate to the contents of the article.	Y. it is a vandalism edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
15	Nonsensical addition	[25]	Nonsensical text causes template to become broken.	N it is not a vandalism edit but a test edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
16	Test edit	[26]	Added the word "false". First edit	N. Even thought this is the first edit from the editor, the intention (back to Assignment 1) is to disagree with the WP:LEAD section. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
17	Test edit	[27]	Said "hi" on the article, first edit.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
18	Test edit	[28]	Said "sup yo" in the article. First edit	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Fehufanga Good day. If Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. Pls provide article name, hist diffs, editor talk page where you place the warning message, reports hist diffs and any links that is applicable. Aslo, pls provide the reasons/justification/explanate of your answers. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Good day, I've added a couple of reverts. I'm not sure about the one I made on medical advice, I'd love to hear your comment. --

Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 03:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Fehufanga, That is no indication of original research as there is no source provided to verify that. We will use unsourced template. Twinkle has most of the warning templates; if you can find the templates in Twinkle then manually subst it - see here. (Note: When a page/link for reading material, not only you should read the entire page and not only the link section but also do read the associated pages/link inside the page/See also section. Let me know if anything else you need help. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I see, thanks for the clarification.--

Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 06:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Good day, I have completed the assignment. --

Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 02:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Fehufanga, See comments above. Pls ping me when you have answered the additional 3 questions. Happy new year. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Thank you, now I have a better understanding of what test edits are. I have completed the remaining three, i hope you don't mind me using my previous reverts. Happy new year. --

Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 06:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Fehufanga, See comments above. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Stay safe. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I have read the comments. I'm ready to go to the next assignment. --

Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 10:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Shared IP tagging edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Fehufanga, 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. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I have finished reading the material above. --

Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 03:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users edit

Harassment and trolling edit

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

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Answer: Vandals seek attention. To them, any attention is good attention. By "feeding the troll" you create a positive reinforcement, where the vandal now perceives that their actions attract the attention of others, creating a motivation for the vandal to continue vandalizing. Denying them of their attention stops the positive reinforcement, creating a sense of boredom, thereby neutralizing their primary motivation.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: Just like distinguishing good faith edits from vandalism, I like to check the editor's past contribution. Good faith editors may often sound frustrated or angry, but they don't attack you personally or use direct harassment. Good faith editors are also more open towards civilized resolution, rather than throwing profanities around.

. Sometimes good faith editors would get upset/annoyed as well 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) 05:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Emergencies edit

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

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

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

Answer: In such a situation one should contact an administrator privately (email, irc, or any low-traffic communication) and emergency@wikimedia.org (threats of harm, also accessible here) with the detail of the threat, such as the diff.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: I should treat it seriously in any case, and per the steps above, contact emergency@wikimedia.org and any adminstrator. It is up to the staff to evaluate the threat.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Sock pupperty edit

Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and answer the question below

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

Answer:

Illegitimately using multiple accounts create the illusion of support, especially on votes such as AfD, RfA, RfB, etc.
Using different accounts to make helpful edits and disruptive edits (good hand and bad hand)
Circumventing a Wikipedia policy, such as the 3RR rule, which is counted per person, not account.
Evading a sanction such as a block

Once I am sure of the account's status as a sockpuppets, it should be reported to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

. When reporting the editor to SPI, do provide all the hist diffs evidence. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fehufanga, see Assignment 5 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I have completed the assignments above. --

Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 04:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fehufanga, See comments above and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:, I'm ready to go to the next assignment. --

Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 11:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion edit

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

Protection edit

Please read the protection policy. Done

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

Answer: When a page has more vandalism/unconstructive edits from non-registered users compared to constructive edits from non-registered users. It is also used to prevent abusive sockpuppets from rapidly making edits.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: Like semi-protection, it used when there is a high ratio of unconstructive to constructive edits from non-registered users. The difference here is that the pending changes protection is used when the article receives little editing traffic.

The key here is that low volume but persistence over time (days or weeks) vandalism edits on the page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: When an edit war involves multiple registered accounts. This forces editors to reach a consensus by discussing in the talk page. It is also used in a short duration when there is a high frequency of vandalism from auto/extended confirmed users.

. 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 Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: Salting is used when there are repeated attempts to create a bad page. This is also used to prevent creation of pages with bad titles such as "How to make an article".

. The creation of a page is "Salted" when editor(s) keep creating the same article with similar content when it has already been deleted, maybe even a few times, when the article is clearly not notable enough to stay on Wikipedia. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: Article talk pages are protected only under severe levels of vandalism. User talk pages are protected when there's severe vandalism and abuse.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:05, 24 February 2021 (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: [29] Semi protection granted until February 13. Persistent edits by non-autoconfirmed and anonymous users regarding a recent event.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=1005145993&diffmode=source

Answer ii: [30] Semi protection granted here

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion edit

Please read WP:CSD. Done

1. In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, briefly to go through the criteria?

Answer:

The page contents patent nonsense (keyboard mashing, random letters, or word salad)
Article that is intended to spread blatant misinformation or hoax
Articles in a foreign language that have the exact same content in another Wikimedia project
The article does not indicate why the subject is important. There are multiple templates for this

Answer again:

G1 - The page is gibberish, nonsensical or without identifiable meaning
G2 - The page is a test (for example, a page that contains: "Can I really create this page?")
G3 - Blatant hoaxes/articles that intended to misinform and clear vandalism
G4 - Identical page that was deleted under a discussion
G5 - The article was created by a blocked/banned user during their block/ban
G6 - Technical deletions such as orphaned templates, pages created due to an error, or uncontroversial page moves
G7 - Author requested deletion. Can only be used when the only substantial content of the article was added by the author
G8 - The page depends on a page that was already deleted, such as talk pages of deleted pages
G9 - Actions taken by the Wikimedia Foundation
G10 - Attack pages. Pages that are intended to attack an entity. This include libel, legal threats, or harassment
G11 - Unambiguous advertising. Article only serves to promote an entity.
G12 - Pages that violate copyright without salvageable versions
G13 - Drafts that have not been edited for 6 months by a human user
G14 - Unnecessary disambiguation page
A1 - Vague article without enough context to identify the subject
A2 - Pages in a non-English language that exist in another Wikimedia project
A3 - No content. Article only consists of external links, a rephrasing of the title, questions, attempts to reach the subject.
A5 - Transwikified article, such as dictionary entries or source texts
A7 - No indication of importance, article does not indicate why the subject is significant. This category applies to people, animals, organizations, web content and events
A9 - Musical recordings without importance, none of the contributing artists have a wiki page and the article does not explain why the subject is significant
A10 - Duplicate article, does not expand upon or improve the existing article, and it is not possible to make a redirect page out of it
A11 - Subject was invented

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:54, 20 March 2021 (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 (promo):[31] Tagged under G11, the article was written with promotional language, and the creator's username indicate possible conflict of insterest.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Answer ii (copyvio): [32] Unfortunately I forgot to copy the diff from tagging the article itself, but here is my talk page warning. Foreign language content copied off another website.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Answer iii (pls state the type of CSD): [33] Linked here is the talk page warning. Article created was tagged as G11.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Answer iv (pls state the type of CSD): : [34] User page tagged with G3, user inserted profanities in their userpage and user was blocked.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Fehufanga, See Assignment 6 above. As always, pls provide reason/justification/explanation of your answers based on the guidelines. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I have completed some of the assignments above. However, looks like looking out for pages needing protection and quick deletion might take a while. Do you have any tips for looking out for pages needing protection? --

Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 04:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Fehufanga See below

(1) "Speedy deletion" - There are easy to find. Q2 (i) promo and (ii) copyvio. You can find them on either under "New page patrol" or "Article for Creation" (AfD) pages in New Pages Feed) (note: pls do not nominated only for promo and copyvio in AfD pages and not other CSD. For COPYVIO pls check the text vs the source by using [https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ Earwig Copy detector and the copyvio content need to be a big chunk against the sources.

(2) "Page protection" - when "multiple" editors vandalize or edit extremely disruptively on a page then the page can be requested for protection. Editors would vandalise article when on certain breaking news/controversial news/sport results/something happen to popular clericities, etc.

Hope this help. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Fehufanga Hi good day. If you have finished the assignment, then pls let me know so I may review it. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Hello, I have finished my assignments above. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 23:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Fehufanga See comments above and pls answer Q1 under "Speedy deletion" section again. Pls list all the CSD and explain them in brief in your own words. Ping me once you have finished. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Fehufanga Thank you and will post the next assignment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Usernames edit

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

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

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

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

Answer: This isn't an offensive username. Unless there is a clearly identifiable person with the name "D. Johnson", this isn't impersonating anyone.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Answer: This username implies shared use/use by an organization. The best way to deal with it, if they have not made any edits yet, is to politely ask them to change their username. If they are breaching other policies, such as the conflict of interest policy, I should consider reporting them to that noticeboard instead.

. Violation of the username policy as a username that implies shared use. Report to WP:UAA if they started making or editing the medical centre page in a promotional way. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Answer: This username also implies shared use, as one cannot be sure which staff members of "Coles" is using the account. As with the above, my first action is to politely ask them to change their username. If they are breaching other policies, such as the conflict of interest policy, I should consider reporting them to that noticeboard instead.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Answer: This username is potentially misleading and disruptive, as it looks like the four-tilde sequence used to make a signature in WikiText. I would report it to the WP:UAA

. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Answer: Usernames that look like IP addresses are impossible to create, but in any case, I would report it to WP:UAA as it's misleading and disruptive

. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Answer: This username is against the BLP policy, as the username attacks a living person, and I would report it to the WP:UAA.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Fehufanga, See Assignment 7 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I have completed the assignment above. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 07:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Fehufanga, See comments above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Progress test edit

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

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

Scenario 1 edit

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

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

Answer: This is vandalism, as it introduces an unverifiable information to a BLP.

if there is no source provided then it is unverifiable (unverifiable in itself is not a vandalism) but also violation of WP:BLP content for it defamed the subject. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

Answer: It is against WP:BLP to include statements in a BLP without verifiability

because it defamed the subject with libelous material. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: I would use the appropriate level of {{subst:uw-biog}}. If this is the first time they did this, I would use a level 1 warning.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (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: The 3RR only applies to edit wars, as it falls under the exception of removing vandalism and offensive language.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: I would use the {{tl|IPvandal}} template, as they are an IP/anonymous user.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: The user has added controversial information to a BLP, and has inserted offensive language to the same article.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Scenario 2 edit

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

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

Answer: I would consider this a good faith edit, they are a new account and they may be testing the editing functionalities of wikipedia.

. We would considered that a "test edit". Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: I would use {{subst:uw-test1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: Rollback-AGF, as this is a good faith edit

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: No, wait until they make another action.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: I would use {{tl|vandal}}, as they are a registered user

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: Account only used for vandalism, bypassed the fourth warning

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Scenario 3 edit

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

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

Answer: Yes, I would use the blue rollback option.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

Answer: I would use {{subst:uw-advert1}} or {{subst:uw-spam1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (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 it with G11 as it is unambiguous advertisement

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (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 use {{subst:uw-coi-username}}, as their username indicates a conflict-of-interest and I would add the extra parameter consisting of the article they created.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes, it is promotional, and it indicates shared use by a group/company.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Fehufanga, See Assignment 8 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I have finished the assignment. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 09:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Fehufanga, See comments above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Rollback edit

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

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

Answer may be used:

Reverting blatant vandalism
Reverting edits on one's own userspace
Mass reverting edits that are unhelpful made by bots or misguided users

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Answer may not be used:

Edit warring (reverting somebody else's edit which isn't blatant vandalism)
Reverting good faith edits

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?

Answer: Revert the rollback, and use an edit summary that states that you did an accidental rollback.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: No, however, there are tools that facilitate that such as Twinkle, and certain userscripts which lets you use rollback with edit summaries.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Fehufanga, See assignment 9 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I have finished assignment 9. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 08:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Fehufanga, Reveiwed. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Monitoring period edit

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

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

Fehufanga, Greeting. The next phase of this course is Assignment 10 - "monitoring period", see above and notes below. Pls make about 30 counter vandalism edits so I may check. Final exam will follows after the monitoring period. Do raise any questions if you have any. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Sounds good, I will start editing as soon as I can. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 09:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Hello, it's been over a week now. Just making sure that there aren't any problems with my edits. Thanks. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 12:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Fehufanga, You 7 day monitoring period has shown no major issues. See below you Final exam question. All the best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Notes

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

Final Exam edit

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

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (15%) edit

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

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

Answer 1: As this is their first time, and this is a test edit, I would warn them with the {{subst:uw-test1}} warning. I would consider it a good faith edit the first time.

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 2: I would warn them with progressively increasing levels of {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}, as they have ignored my notice to use the sandbox, and continued to insert nonsense to the article, that would be vandalism. Past that point, I would report them to WP:AIV

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (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 give them a {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}, and consider it vandalism.

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 4: I would give them increasing levels of {{subst:uw-vandalism}} up to level 4. Past that point, I will report them to WP:AIV for not listening to warnings, and repeatedly inserting signatures to articles.

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (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: Depending on what that article is about, I will give {{subst:uw-npov1}} or {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}

. If the article is about John Smith then NPOV if not then vadal warning. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 6: If they continue, I will give increasing levels of {{subst:uw-npov1}} or {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} up to level 4. Past that point, I would report them to WP:AIV for adding a non-neutral POV and/or vandalism.

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: I would warn them with the {{subst:uw-test1}} warning.

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 8: I would warn them with progressively increasing warning levels of {{subst:uw-test}} up to level 4. Past that point, I would report them to WP:AIV.

should use {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} and increase the warning level after. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 9: Sometimes new editors would use inadequate edit summaries, so the first thing I'd do is check if the information they deleted is actually false. If they deleted correct information I would warn them with {{subst:uw-delete1}}

always check the source to verify if the information is correct or not. If the info not as per source then leave the edit alone, if not warn with {{subst:uw-delete1}}. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 10: I would warn them with progressively increasing levels of {{subst:uw-delete}}. User contribution history helps to check whether or not the user has done deletions of sourced information before, and whether or not they were done in good faith. If they have a history of disruptive contributions, I would be very suspicious.

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 12: I would consider it good faith, and leave it, especially in BLPs.

. Unsourced content can be removed. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 13: I would check whether or not the content is actually relevant to the article. If so, I would warn them with the appropriate level of {{subst:uw-delete}}

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (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: Threats of suicide or self-harm should be taken seriously, even if they maybe joking. I would immediately contact emergency@wikimedia.org and an administrator via private means (email, irc) and send them the details of the threat. It is not up to me to judge such situations, and should be left to the Wikimedia team.

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: Threats of harm should be taken seriously. I would immediately contact emergency@wikimedia.org and an administrator via private means (email, irc) and relay them the details of the threat.

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Part 2 (15%) edit

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

1. A user blanks Cheesecake

Answer 1: {{subst:uw-blank1}} or higher

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 2: {{subst:uw-attempt2}} as adding curse words are bad faith edits.

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 3: {{subst:uw-attempt1}}

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} or higher

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 5: {{subst:uw-delete1}} or higher

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

Answer 6: {{subst:uw-test1}} if no warning has been given, otherwise a higher level of the test warning, or an appropriate level of {{subst:uw-vandalism}}

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} or higher

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 8: {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} or higher

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 9: {{subst:uw-delete4im}}, after that i would immediately report them to WP:AIV

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: Report them to WP:AIV for repeatedly blanking an article, unless someone has reported them already. In which case, simply revert the edit.

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (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: Revert the edit, report them to WP:ANI, and give them the {{subst:ANI-notice}} notice

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 12: {{subst:uw-image1}} or higher

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (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: Report them to WP:AIV as this is harassment.

. Also add warning of personal attack message on editor talk page. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

14. A user adds "Italic text to Sydney

Answer 14: {{subst:uw-mos1}} or higher

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} or higher

. Cassiopeia talk 04:40, 5 May 2022 (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 - Pls provide his diff (your revert and report such as AIV and et)	CASS' Comment
Example	Unsourced	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
16	Test edit	[35]	Saying "hi" in article. No prior history of editing before. Notice given.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
17	Test edit	[36]	Removal of a curly bracket which breaks the template. No prior history of editing before. Notice given.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
18	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[37]	Adding nonsense to article multiple times. Went past fourth warning, reported to AIV.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
19	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[38]	Went past fourth warning, reported to AIV.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
20	WP:NPOV	[39]	Subjective opinion. Notice given.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
21	WP:Fringe theories	[40]	Adding anti-semitism claim without any source. Warnings given.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
22	WP:SPAM	[41]	Added spamlink. Warned here. Now blocked.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
23	Talking on the article	[42]	Expressed their concern about how Wikipedia has instructions to tie a noose in the article. Notice given.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
24	Unsourced	[43]	Unsourced addition to BLP. Notice given.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
25	Your choice (Vandalism)	[44]	Notice given.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
26	Your choice (Unexplained removal)	[45]	Removal of lead without reason given. Notice given.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
27	Your choice (Vandalism)	[46]	Lv. 4 warning. Subsequently blocked as VOI.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
28	Your choice (Vandalism)	[47]	Vandalism. Notice given.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
29	Your choice (Spam)	[48]	Unnecessary external link. Notice given.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
30	Your choice (vandalism)	[49]	Warnings. Sockpuppet account. Blocked	Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Part 3 (10%) edit

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

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

Answer 1: G11 (Unambiguous advertising)

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

Answer 2: A7 (No indication of importance)

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

3. Joe goes to England and comes home !

Answer 3: A1 (Vague article without enough context to identify the subject)

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: G3 (Blatant hoax)

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

5. Fuck Wiki!

Answer 5: G3 (Vandalism)

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

What would you do in the following circumstance:

6. A user blanks a page they very recently created

Answer 6: Ask the user if they intend the article to be deleted. If so, tag it with G7

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: As the author isn't allowed to remove the tag, warn them with {{subst:uw-speedy1}}, and replace the tag.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (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: Warn the user with {{subst:uw-afd1}}, and restore the AFD tag

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 9: Warn the user with progressively increasing levels of {{subst:uw-afd}} up to level 4. After that, report them to WP:AIV

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: G13 (Drafts that have not been edited for 6 months by a human user)

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Part 4 (10%) edit

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

1. TheMainStreetBand

Answer 1: The term "band" implies shared use, but I will wait until they make an edit related to their band's page.

. If the editor edits about an article "The Main Street Band" then report the editor to WP:UAA. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

2. Poopbubbles

Answer 2: I would do nothing. In the case they start vandalizing, I would warn them for vandalizing.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

3. Brian's Bot

Answer 3: Unless there is an actual community approved bot named "Brian's Bot", this is a violation of the policy. I would report them to WP:UAA

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

Answer 4: Not a violation of the policy, although may be annoying for users to read, I would ask them to request a username change. But in case they start doing vandalism, warn them for vandalism.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

5. Bobsysop

Answer 5: Impersonation/misleading. I would report them to WP:UAA

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

6. 12, 23 June 2012

Answer 6: Disruptive, as it looks like a date. I would report them to WP:UAA.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

7. PMiller

Answer 7: Unless there is a clearly identifiable person with the name "P. Miller", this isn't impersonating anyone.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

8. OfficialJustinBieber

Answer 8: Impersonation/misleading. I would report them to WP:UAA

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)v

9. The Dark Lord of Wiki

Answer 9: I would leave it alone. If they vandalize I'd start warning and eventually I'd report them to WP:AIV if they continue

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

10. I love you

Answer 10: I would leave it alone. If they vandalize I'd start warning and eventually I'd report them to WP:AIV if they continue

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Part 5 (10%) edit

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

Answer:

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

Answer 1: The 3RR does not apply to obvious vandalism, if it's not obvious, or borderline, I should be careful when reverting.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: Those accounts should be reported to WP:AIV. Users can be reported by using Twinkle, RedWarn, or manually.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

Answer: WP:ANI with the details of the abuse, and notifying the user.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: WP:UAA. Can be done with Twinkle.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: WP:ANI with the details of the attacks. If they have been vandalizing, WP:AIV.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: They should be reported to WP:ANEW and be notified.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: They should be reported to WP:BLPN.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: They should be reported to WP:SPI under the name of the "sockmaster", along with the evidence.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: The request should go to WP:RPP. Twinkle has an option to report this.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: They should be reported to WP:ANEW and be notified.

The should be warned after their 3rd edit involving 3RR and if they edit again (the 4th in edit warring) then report them to ANEW and a noticiation on their talk page of the ANEW report.

Part 6 - Theory in practice (40%) edit

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

Answer: Answer 1: [50]

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 2: [51] Reported to the AIV (see below)

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 3: [52] - Test edit

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 4: [53] - Self revert, see their self-revert [54] here.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 5: [55] Good faith, added content which is already present on the article.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 6 (report to AIV) : [56] Making repeated nonconstructive edits by removing or changing single characters/words

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 7a: (report to AIV) :[57] Vandalism after final warning

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 7b: (report to 3RR): AN3 report, edit warring on Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware).

. Good work! Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 8a: [58] protection granted for 10 days

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 8b: [59] disruptive editing. protection log

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 9a: [60] Recent controversy related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine has caused disruptive edits from unregistered users. protected for a year as Arbitration enforcement.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 9b: [61] Another one related to the ongoing invasion of Ukraine. Protected for 1 week

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 10a: [62] A promotional userpage containing an ad for an Indonesian gambling website<

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 10b: [63] Blatant vandalism

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 10a: [64] Blatant vandalism.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 11b: [65] Unambiguous advertising.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 12: [66] Implies shared usage + promotional.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 13: [67] Offensive username. Made a blatant vandalism page which I CSD tagged.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 14: Edit warring leads to animosity between editors, creates a negative environment for other editors, and causes confusion for the readers.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 15: Edit wars come from disagreements about the contents of a page between editors.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 16: Vandalism on BLPs can be libelous or slanderous in nature. It might ruin their image or reputation. In addition, they might seek legal action against Wikipedia.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 17: Deny them, as they feed off the attention they get. Just report them to the WP:AIV, and deny.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Answer 18: Trolls feed off attention, the more you give it to them, the more they will continue to troll you.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 19: Semi protection lets users who have autoconfirmed rights edit a protected article. Fully protected articles can only be edited by administrators.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer 20: Personal attacks can make an editor feel unsafe, threatened may cause them to feel discouraged from editing on Wikipedia.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Fehufanga See above Final exam questions. All the best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: For the self-revert edits, I only have to notify/welcome the user, correct? --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 02:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Fehufanga Since the editor has already revert their own test edit, we just need to place test edit warning message. You can place welcome message if only the editor made contructive edits (we dont usually place welcome edit to vandalised editors). Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I'm sorry it has taken me this long to continue the training. In part 6, am I supposed to report two users or four users? It seems ambiguous to me --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 06:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Fehufanga For part 6, question 6 & 7 & 7a (pls see the changes I have made). You have answered most of the questions and only some left which are the hardest :). When you have done, kindly ping me. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 07:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: May I ask how to report multiple users over an edit war? Two users (one IP and one registered) are engaging an edit war over Danny Trejo, which has resulted in the registered user being blocked form Simple English Wikipedia. I have given both of them the 3RR warning on their respective talk pages, and [68] to bring them to the talk page of the article to discuss this. It's also worth noting that their dispute extends to related articles such as Danny Trejo filmography. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 02:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be more complicated than I thought as Willondon pointed out that these two accounts may be the same person. Where should I report something like this? --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 04:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Fehufanga for edit warring, report to WP:AN3 and provide all hist diff of the edit warrings. If there is more than 2 editors then report all of them. If suspecious of 2 editors are the same person (sock) then report to WP:SPI and provide all the evident and hist diff. Cassiopeia talk

@Cassiopeia: I thought I'd give this some closure: I opened an SPI investigation as I've noticed crosswiki abuse. All of their accounts have been locked. One more question, for the last, unanswered question. As a non-involved editor who noticed an edit war going on, is it okay for me to open a talk page discussion regarding the edit war? I'm still not sure how I should handle a report to the 3RR noticeboard --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 02:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Fehufanga Let uninvolved editor to close the SPI. You can open a discussion in the article talk page for 3RR even you are not invovled and also you can report the involved editors to 3RR as long as your have give them a 3RR warning prior and they still continue in edit warring after receiving the warning. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 02:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I've finished all the questions above. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 00:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Fehufanga Somehow 15 questions in Part 2 were missed out on my initial post. Kindly answer and let me know when you have done. My apologies. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 04:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I have finished the questions. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 07:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

-===Final score===

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage
1	15	14	15%	14%
2	30	30	30%	30%
3	10	10	10%	10%
4	10	10	10%	10%
5	10	9.5	10%	9.5%
6	25	25	40%	25%
TOTAL	100	98.5	100	98.5%

Completion edit

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}}:

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.

Hi Fehufanga It's been a pleasure to work with you over the past year. I hope you gained something from this CVUA program. Do download WP:Huggle if you havent as this is a great vandalism tool. 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 05:55, 21 May 2022 (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.