User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Pupsterlove02

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/Pupsterlove02.

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.: Done, already enabled.

Good faith and vandalism

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

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

Answer: Good faith edits are intended to help improve the encyclopedia and may or may not be helpful. Vandalism, in contrast, is deliberately against the encyclopedia and harms its development. Cases of true vandalism are often fairly easy to spot and include illegitimate blanking, adding nonsense (with the exception of editing tests and other accidental cases), and adding inappropriate external links to promote a product. Editing tests and disruptive editing are not vandalism in and of themselves and may fall under good faith. When in doubt, assume good faith, especially if the user is new.

good. The key here is "intention". If an editor intends to help Wikipedia, and the edit is considered disruptive, they are still considered a "good faith" editor especially the new editor does not aware their edits are disruptive. Vandalism is a "deliberate attempt" to harm Wikipedia. Editor might edit adds incorrect or unsourced information and this does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal; the key is their "intention". Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:43, 19 June 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) An editor changing some instances of "its" to "it's", although "its" was correct: [1]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(2) An editor removing a conversion to US$ with the reason "No need for Amri-centrism": [2]

. It might be done it accidentally, the editor removed the source, thus it would considered disruptive/vandalism edit.

(3) An un-cited edit violating WP:BLP guidelines, but if references are found, could be acceptable: [3]

. It is a unsourced edit especially on a WP:BLP article. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(4) An editor mentioning the local Facebook group, which generally is not notable enough to include in articles: [4]

(5) An addition to the bottom of a page on a school that the article was "verified" by residents of the area: [5]

Answer:

(1) [6]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(2) [7]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(3) [8] (would normally not consider this to be blatant, but their edit summary says otherwise)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02 Good day. Any questions regrading the assignment, please let me know here. For other questions not relating to the assignments, ping me on the talk page of this subpage Here. See above the first assignment. Ping me here when you are done and ready for review. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, looks like you pinged the wrong user here! Either way, I found the page and completed the first assignment. All but 1 of the examples of good faith edits/vandalism that I used were taken from my own contribs, as I reverted them after. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 14:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02 Sorry about that and good to know you found this page. Bookmark it on your computer. See review above. Do let me know you have any questions or you are ready for next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, would you like me to provide another example of a good faith edit in place of number 2? I had seen the removal of the reference as accidental, which is why I considered it to be good faith. With that exception, I'm ready to move on to the next assignment. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 18:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02 It would be good that if you would provide 2 example of good faith edtis ( #4 & #5) above. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Done, moving on to the next assignment now. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 12:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

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

Please answer the following questions

Answer: Warning users helps to inform them that they did something violating guidelines, which they may not know, especially if they are new. This way, they can be educated on Wikipedia's policies and contribute more constructively in the future. Warning also deters some users, as they may realize that their changes will be reverted and that they will be blocked if they continue their behavior. In addition, warning users helps administrators if they later are asked to block the user, as the warnings show a track record of what the user has done and that they have been sufficiently warned against those actions.

. The purpose is to "educate" the editors on constructive editing, especially those who are new to Wikipedia and to "deter" them of such actions with stronger warnings leads up to a block. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer: In cases of extreme and very repetitive vandalism across many pages in a short span of time, a 4im warning would be appropriate, serving as the only warning before a block.

. 4im is only for widespread and particularly egregious vandalism such as vandalism only account and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer: Yes, warning templates should always be substituted in case the text changes to become irrelevant in the future. Some tools, like Twinkle, will automatically substitute templates, but if manually adding a template, use {{subst:(name of template)}}.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer: After a level 4 or 4im warning, continued vandalism should be reported to WP:AIV.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer i:

Hello, I'm Pupsterlove02. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

Should be used on the first instance of a user removing content from pages with no prior consensus or explanation. If content removal is particularly severe, higher level templates may be used on the first instance.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii:

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

Should be used if a user continually promotes a product or spams links into articles. Generally not used as a first warning, but may be acceptable in somewhat blatant and clearly harmful cases.

. Usually is used after least there is a first or second warning. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii:

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.

Should be used as a final warning against blatant vandalism if previous warnings have been issued. If this is a first warning in the case of very harmful vandalism, use {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} instead.

. Extremely rare we use as the first warning for first vandalism edit. 4im is only for widespread and particularly egregious vandalism such as vandalism only account and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02 See assignment 2 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Completed assignment. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 13:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02 See review above and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Ready for next assignment. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 12:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Tools

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

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

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

Twinkle

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

User creation log

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

Rollback

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

STiki

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

Huggle

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

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

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

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

#	Type	Diff of your revert	Your comment - If you report to AIV please include the diff	CASS' Comment
Example	Unsourced	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
1	Test edit	[9]	Didn't originally think it was one and warned with {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}, but looking back at how strange it was it might be a test, as it's the first edit from an IP in almost 2 years, could be different person	N. Test edit means "the editor trying to make an edit to make sure they could actually make an edit in Wikipedia and it usually made on their first or second edit. The editor did not seem to trying to if they can make an edit but the editor was trying to change the info in the page.06:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
2	Test edit	[10]	User had made 4 revisions, the first two of which just changed a number back and forth, and the last two moving around content and other minor non-constructive edits; warned with {{subst:uw-test1}}.	N. See comment on Q1. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
3	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[11]	Added extreme amounts of unrelated content to the article after being given level 4im for triggering multiple edit filters on the article, reported to AIV, ~~as of writing no result yet~~ User was indef blocked soon after	Y. Pls provide the report to AIV, blocked and revert edits hist diffs next time. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
4	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[12] [13]	Reverted vandalism, gave user {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} after seeing previous warnings of levels 1 and 3, user vandalized again similarly, reported to AIV ~~(currently no result, will update)~~ indef blocked	Y. Pls provide the report to AIV, blocked and revert edits hist diffs next time. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
5	WP:NPOV	[14]	Fairly serious violation, so warned with {{subst:uw-npov2}}	N This is a vandalism unsourced edit. Non WP:NPOV mean the content is not written in neutral point of view. Example: "XXX is very beautiful and have such a sweet voice when she sings" instead of she is a singer" or "XXX team trashed YYY team withe the scoreboard of 92-80" instead of XXX team won the match with the scoreboard of 92-80. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
6	WP:NPOV	[15]	Obvious violation, warned with {{subst:uw-npov1}}	N This is a vandalism edit. See Q5 comments. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
7	WP:SPAM	[16]	Inappropriate, promotional external links, warned user with {{subst:uw-spam1}} and comment on promotion	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
8	Talking on the article	[17]	User asked if anyone else was at the article because of a certain cultural reference (at least, that's what it looked like); reverted and warned user with {{subst:uw-talkinarticle}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
9	Unsourced	[18]	Reverted 2 edits by 2 different users here—a change in the title of a cited article and an unsourced BLP addition. Didn't warn the editor who changed the cited article's title parameter, as the edit was made a month ago and the IP hasn't made any other contribs, but warned the other user with {{subst:uw-biog1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
10	Your choice	[19]	General non-constructive edits, fairly minor (as of writing, could escalate), warned with {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	Y. Pls indicate what type of revert in Your choice cell next time. More so a {{subst:uw-delete}} and it is a vandalism edit. Do note since this is in the lead section (no source is needed if the info (which sohould be) in the bodytext is sourced. If the text remove is unsourced in the body text, then do nothing. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
11	Your choice	[20]	Removal of content, warned with {{subst:uw-delete1}}	N. Pls indicate what type of revert in Your choice cell next time. It is ok to remove unsourced content. Do nothing or if you can find the source then do help and add the source in. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
12	Your choice	[21]	Deliberate false information, will keep an eye on the user, warned with {{subst:uw-error1}} but would have used higher level warning but the other 2 were added as I was warning the user and didn't go through until I had warned.	Y. Pls indicate what type of revert in Your choice cell next time. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
13	Your choice	[22]	Improper humor (in the Comedy article, no less!), gave {{subst:uw-joke2}} because of the nature of the humor	Y. Pls indicate what type of revert in Your choice cell next time. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
14	Your choice	[23]	Change of infobox title, warned with {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	Y. Pls indicate what type of revert in Your choice cell next time. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
15	Your choice	[24]	Added inappropriate external link to body, reverted and warned with {{subst:uw-spam1}}	Y. Pls indicate what type of revert in Your choice cell next time. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
16	Test edit	[25]	User changed an infobox title on their first edit, simply rearranging letters and replacing 1; warned with {{subst:uw-test1}}	N. Even thought it was the first edit from the editor, the editor change SV to SC (soccer club I presume) which was not a test edit. We go back to Assignment 1, and always ask "what is the intention of the editor's edit?" To me it was not a edit which the editor was trying to see if they would actually would make an edit in Wikipedia. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
17	Test edit	[26]	User changed 1 letter in a name, warned with {{subst:uw-test1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
18	WP:NPOV	[27]	User added a sentence against the article's subject, warned with {{subst:uw-npov1}}	Y it is also unsourced. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
19	WP:NPOV	[28]	User added a couple points over 2 edits, reverted and warned with {{subst:uw-npov1}}	Y. It is a personal statement / unsourced. Cassiopeia^(talk)
20	Unsourced	[29]	Unsourced birth date change, warned with {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}	N it is vandalism. As upon check on the source in the artical (always check if there are sources provided or check on internet) the subject was born in 1964 - see source here.
21	Test edit	[30]	Clear test, warned with {{subst:uw-test1}} and a custom message recommending WP:TWA.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
22	Test edit	[31]	User added "asasasa" to the end of a word on first edit, reverted and warned with {{subst:uw-test1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
20	Unsourced	[32]	Added unsourced information about the personal life of a living person, warned with {{subst:uw-biog1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02 Good day. STiki is not working at the moment. If Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. "Your comment" section is where you put (1) reason of your revert, (2) what type of warning you place on the editor talk page, (3) any AIV report ()4 result of the report if any (5) anything info is needed for the revert. (pls provide all hist diffs of the above). Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Finally found an example of talking in the article, done. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 16:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02 See comments above. Kindly answer additional questions from 16-20 and when you have finished, pls ping me. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I'll get started on those soon, but a quick question: What exactly is the issue with number 12? I was reverting an edit that added deliberately false information on the film, not reverting an edit removing unsourced material. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 13:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02 My appologies, I must have looking at the wrong article when I review Q12. Thank you for raising the questions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Done. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 20:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02 Pls see review and kindly work on additional 3 questions above. Pls let me know if your have any questions or further clarification is needed. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I somehow managed to provide the wrong diff for 17, fixed. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 10:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02 OK. Correction in review. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Completed more reversions. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 21:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02 Reviewed. Pls let me know if you have any question or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, ready for next assignment. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 14:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Shared IP tagging

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Pupsterlove02, Posted Assignment 4 above. No exercises for this assignment but only some reading material. Once you have done reading, pls let me know so I would post Assignment 5 for you. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, read through it, thanks. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 23:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users

Harassment and trolling

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

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Answer: One main reason for vandalism is the recognition and infamy it may bring. By denying that recognition, vandals and trolls are left without one of their primary reasons of motivation, possibly stopping the vandalism.

. If editor asks questions, we should reply but in a mechanical way and not engaging in their troll behaviour, repeating the same mechanical answer if needed. The main point/goal of the trolls is that they want attention. We dont feed them and dont get mad by denying them the recognition that they seek is critical to countering them.

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

Answer: Good faith users asking why an edit was reverted may use less demanding, kinder language, whereas a troll would be direct and attacking. More importantly, a good faith user has the intention of asking a question for clarification, while a troll is just trying to be annoying and bait you for a response and should be ignored.

. 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) 10:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Emergencies

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

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

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

Answer: Upon finding a threat of harm, the best course of action would be to email the WMF at emergency@wikimedia.org and another admin, including the name of the page in question or a diff. Oversight should also be requested in the email to an admin.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Even if the threat appears to be empty, take it seriously and follow the steps above and leave it to someone more trained to make that call.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sock pupperty

Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and answer the question below

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

Answer: Sock puppetry may take many different forms. In my (admittedly somewhat short) experience so far here, I have mostly come across users making problematic edits while logged out and new accounts created to evade blocks or other sanctions, although sock puppetry also includes piggybacking off someone else's account, reusing old accounts, or gathering a large number of friends to make new accounts for support. Sock puppetry should be reported at WP:SPI.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pupsterlove02, see Assignment 5 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Done. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 15:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02, pls answer part 2 for Sock pupperty question. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: My bad, done. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 11:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02, See review above and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, ready for next assignment. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 12:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion

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

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

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

Answer: Semi-protection prevents a page from being edited by IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts, so if a page is being targeted by large numbers of IPs or new users, semi-protection should be used. It is also used against sockpuppetry.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: Pending changes protection is useful against persistent vandalism or repetitive BLP and copyright violations, as it requires edits by IPs and non-autoconfirmed users to be reviewed before being implemented.

. For low volume but persistent vandalism edits over a period of time (few days to few weeks). Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: Full protection is often used against content disputes, as editors involved in these may have more experience and would not be affected by semi or extended-confirmed protection.

. Typically the protection is done for a short period of time. Extremely high profiles pages are fully protected permanently, like the Wikipedia main page. However, fully protected is rare and only admins can edit the page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: Sometimes, pages are repeatedly created that don't belong in the encyclopedia or contain offensive or copyrighted content. In these cases, the page should be creation protected to prevent the issue.

. A page is creation protected or "salted" if it ha'as been through a deletion discussion 'and the subject is not notable, but it is repeatedly re-created. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

5. In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected? Answer: Talk pages should rarely be protected, as they are essential for discussion and requesting changes to protected pages. However, sometimes severe vandalism makes it necessary to semi-protect a talk page for a short period of time.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:11, 28 January 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: Camp Nou, requested semi-protection here

Note: after requesting protection, I found out that another user had already requested protection on an admin's talk page, and that admin protected the page, so not sure if this counts or not

Pupsterlove02 Kindly provide another example. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer again : Emanuel Cleaver, requested semi-protection [33]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer ii: Arvada, Colorado, requested semi-protection [34]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

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

Answer: Speedy deletion allows admins to skip the deletion discussion for pages that would almost definitely fail the discussion anyway. It is used for obvious cases of pages unfit for the encyclopedia, such as pages containing nonsense, copyright violations, or hoaxes.

Kindly elaborate a little more - list down all the CSD in short descriptions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

General:

G1—for pages containing only complete nonsense and random strings of characters
G2—pages created to test things
G3—clearly vandalism or a blatant hoax
G4—used for pages essentially identical in content to a page deleted through a discussion
G5—if a banned/blocked user creates a page that goes against their ban/block's conditions, this criterion may be used
G6—maintenance/technical deletions
G7—author requests deletion of a page that (mostly) only they have edited
G8—the page in question relies on another, nonexistent page
G9—used by WMF for a page that they determine should be deleted (rare)
G10—attack pages, such as legal threats or libel
G11—spam/promo
G12—copyright violation
G13—drafts/AfC submissions that haven't been edited for 6 months
G14—disambiguation pages that disambiguate 1 or 0 articles or are redirects to non-disambiguating pages

Articles

A1—subject of the article can't be identified due to a lack of context
A2—duplicates of articles on a project in another language
A3—any article which has no (substantial) content, don't use immediately after a page is created, give editors time
A5—articles that have content that already exists at another project (ex. Wiktionary/Wikisource)
A7—any article on a person, animal, organization, web content, or event that doesn't make a claim of significance/importance (not notability)
A9—A7 but for any sort of musical recording
A10—duplication with no new information
A11—anything clearly invented by the author and doesn't claim significance

Redirects

R2—redirects to another namespace from main (with some exceptions)
R3—typos that people probably wouldn't make
R4—file namespace redirects matching names at Commons

Files

F1—duplicates of existing files
F2—empty or otherwise corrupted files
F3—improper licensing info
F4—not enough licensing info
F5—non-free use orphans
F6—non-free use files without a rationale for use
F7—if a claim for fair use is invalid
F8—duplicates from Commons
F9—copyright violations
F10—files that aren't sound, image, or video and have no use
F11—no permission from copyright holder

Usernames

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

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

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

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

Answer: Could be impersonation, or could just be a legitimate real name; should be reported to WP:UAA for a precautionary block.

. The username is acceptable under Wikipedia username guideline policies should his/her edits are constructive and not claiming to be someone famous/important/famous that violate BLP policies. We dont protect a page or report any user on ground of precautionary/preemptive mind set. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer: Both promotional and implies shared use; should be reported to WP:UAA if blatantly being used for promotion, but a warning template may be acceptable if they appear to be acting in good faith and may have simply not known.

This looks like a organization username of a medical centre. Write to the user and info and guide them about Wikipedia username policy and advise the user to change his/her name. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer: Contains profanity, so would be a disruptive username; report to WP:UAA for a blatant violation.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer: Could be a shared account, so check contribs and see if their edits are in good faith of not; if in good faith, ask to change username, otherwise report to WP:UAA.

. Good. It is a good practice to wait until the user begins editing to know their intentions before reporting to WP:UAA. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer: That username would cause a lot of problems since it's the same as the code for signing, so report to WP:UAA: however, I don't think that that username could technically be registered.

. This type of user name is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia, so you won't stumble across them. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer: Looks like an IP, so should be reported to WP:UAA; again, though, a filter would probably catch that.

. This type of user name is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia, so you won't stumble across them. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer: Clearly violates BLP policy, so should be reported and supression requested.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02, See Assignment 7 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, done. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 17:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02, See above comment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Progress test

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

The following 3 scenarios 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

1) You encounter an IP vandalising Justin Bieber by adding in statements that he is gay. i) Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why? Answer: This would be vandalism, since it makes false claims about a living person, which is against WP:BLP.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

ii) Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching? Answer: The edit breaks WP:BLP policy, which is very strict and requires that contentious claims on biographies of living people are supported by reliable sources.

. the edit defame the subject reputation, Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

iii) What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page? Answer: {{subst:uw-biog1}}, which is used for BLP violations.

. Alternative {{uw-defamatory1}} or {{uw-vandalism1}}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

iv) The user has now added offensive words to the article 3 times. You have reverted three times already, can you be blocked for violating the three revert rule in this case? Answer: No, since reverting blatant vandalism is an exception to WP:3RR.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

v) Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}}? Answer: Since this user is an IP, {{IPvandal}} should be used, as mentioned at WP:AIV.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer:

If they have vandalized after level 4 warning: vandalism after final warning

If all edits are vandalism: vandalism-only account

. Or provide all his diffs of the vandalized edits. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Scenario 2

You see a new account called "Hi999" that has added random letters to one article. i) Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why? Answer: This first edit would be considered good faith, as it could be a test, and WP:VD tells us that this is not vandalism.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

ii) What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page? Answer: {{subst:uw-test1}}, used for test edits.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

iii) 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, since test edits are made in good faith and, as mentioned above, are not vandalism, so we should assume good faith.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

iv) 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: The user can't be reported yet, because they have to vandalize after a level 4 or 4im warning to be reported. Instead, revert the edit and give them a level 4 warning. WP:VD explicitly mentions not to report a vandal until they have clearly ignored warnings and continued disruptive activity.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

v) If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.? Answer: Yes; if they vandalize after the 4th warning or are clearly a vandalism-only account, they may be indef blocked per WP:BLOCK.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

vi) Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}}? Answer: Since this is a registered user, {{vandal}} should be used, as mentioned at WP:AIV.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

vii) What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor? Answer: I would write "vandalism after final warning; (if applicable) vandalism-only account," since the account has vandalized after a level 4 warning and may have only made vandalism edits.

. or provide vandalized hist diffs edits. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Scenario 3

You see a new account called "LaptopsInc" which has created a new page called "Laptops Inc" (which only contains the words "Laptops Inc" and a few lines of text copied from the company's website). The user also added "www.laptopsinc.com" on the Laptop article. You research Laptops Inc on Google and find that is a small company. i) Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option would you use? Answer: Yes, I would revert the edit with the standard rollback (blue) link and leave an edit summary explaining that the revert was for spam.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

ii) If you do revert which warning template would you use? Answer: {{subst:uw-spam1}}, which is used for inappropriate external links.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

iii) 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, under critera WP:G11, as this is clearly promotion. Since the text is also copied from the website, WP:G12 would also apply for copyvio.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

iv) Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters? Answer: Yes, {{subst:uw-coi-username|Laptops Inc}}, since their username suggests a clear conflict of interest with Laptops Inc, which they have created an article on.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

v) Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate? Answer: Yes, for being a promotional username with promotional edits per WP:PROMONAME, and, as such, is a blatant violation of WP:UN and should be brought to WP:UAA.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02, See Assignment 8 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, done. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 00:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02, Thank you for pining. I need you to provide explanation/justification/reasons based on guidelines in this program for your answers instead of just very short few words. When you have done pls let me know. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, ok, sorry, elaborated a bit. Wasn't sure if you just wanted answers or reasoning. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 00:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02, See comment above. Thank you for providing more details info and you need to do the same for all the answers in this program especially the final exam. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Rollback

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

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

Answer may be used: Rollback may be used in cases of blantant vandalism when the reason for the revert is obvious, to revert your own edits or edits in your userspace, to revert edits made violating a banned/blocked user's conditions, and to revert widespread unconstructive edits to the wiki as long as an explanation is provided in a relevant area.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Answer may not be used: Any condition other than the ones listed above, in particular anytime an edit summary may be required, including when reverting good-faith edits or changes you happen to disagree with.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?

Answer: Ideally, accidental rollbacks should be manually undone with an edit summary noting the accidental use of rollback.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: No, because rollback does not allow anything more than a very generic edit summary, so you can't write anything that you might put in an edit summary.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02, See assignment 9 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, done. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 21:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02,

Done review. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Monitoring period

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

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

Pupsterlove02, Greeting. The next phase of this course is Assignment 10 - "monitoring period", see above. Cheers. Pls make about 30 counter vandalism edits so I may check and I could not able to check all the counter vandalism if you make hundred of such edits. Final exam will follows after the monitoring period. Do raise any questions if you have any. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02 You 7 day monitoring period has shown no major issues. See below you Final. All the best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Final Exam

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (15%)

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

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

Answer 1: If this is their first warning, I would revert the edit using the green good faith rollback link in Twinkle and warn them with {{subst:uw-test1}}, since addition of random characters is a test edit.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 2: If they continue, this is now vandalism, so I would revert with the blue rollback link and warn with {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (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: After they have been warned, if the user adds their signature again, it is vandalism and they should be reverted and warned with {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}.

: Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 4: If the user continues to add their signature to articles, they should be warned with {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} and {{subst:uw-vandalism4}}. If they continue after the final level 4 warning, they should be reported to WP:AIV.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (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: Since they could simply not know about policy, it is best to start with a {{subst:uw-npov1}} warning and assume good faith.

{yellow tick}}. If the article is about John Smith the NPOV warning is correct, however, if the article is not about John Smith, then it would consider a disruptive/vandalism edit Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 6: If they continue, revert the vandalism and warn with {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} and up.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: This also looks like a test edit, so assume good faith, revert with the green link, and warn with {{subst:uw-test1}}.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 8: After the first warning, this is now vandalism, so revert with the blue link and warn with {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} and up.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 9: Since there is a source supporting the content, this is considered page blanking without a valid reason, so leave an edit summary asking them to provide a reason or use the talk page and warn the user with {{subst:uw-delete1}}.

. First we need to check the source again the text to determine that is what the editor say. If it is wrong, then it is alright to removed the content and if not then the edit is considered a vandalism edit. If you are not familiar with the content, then write to the editor to seek further understanding. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 10: After the first time, if the user has had positive contributions in the past, kindly ask them on their talk page for an explanation for the blanking.

After checking and if find the content is as per source then revert the edit and place higher warning templates {{subst:uw-delete2}}, Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 11: If the user continues, but has no history or a history of disruptive contributions, continue warning them with increasing levels of {{subst:uw-delete2}} and take to WP:AIV if they continue past level 4.

After checking and if find the content is as per source then revert the edit and place higher delete warning templates and report the edit to wP:AIV after past level 4 warning. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 12: Since the content is unsourced, this is probably a good faith edit, so leave it alone unless there is a reliable source supporting the information.

.04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 13: "Not relevant" isn't a good reason to remove content supported by a source, so revert and warn with {{subst:uw-delete1}}.

. Need cross-check with the supporting source to see if the sourced content is indeed "not relevant" supported by the source. If that's the case, then do nothing. Otherwise, place {{subst:uw-delete1}} on their talk page.. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (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: Since this is a threat of harm, we must take it seriously and contact WMF.

. Email emergency@wikimedia.org with the diffs of the threat and also contact any administrator of the edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: Like 14; since this is a threat of harm, contact WMF.

. The edit is a considered a threat. Email emergency@wikimedia.org with the diffs of the threat and also contact any administrator of the edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Part 2 (15%)

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

1. A user blanks Cheesecake

Answer 1: {{subst:uw-blank1}} for blanking an entire page.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 2: {{subst:uw-attempt2}}, since this is a more blatant violation and is not in good faith.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 3: {{subst:uw-efsummary}} for tripping an edit summary filter.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} for vandalizing an article.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 5: {{subst:uw-delete1}} for deleting part of an article without a reason.

. If the section content is supported by sources. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

Answer 6: {{subst:uw-test1}} for test edits made in good faith. If the user has been around for a while, {{subst:uw-disruptive1}}.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: If it's their first edit, {{subst:uw-test1}} may be appropriate; otherwise, use {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} if Tim isn't in the article or {{subst:uw-npov1}} if he is.

Place {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} for it is not a test edit. Test edit is the editor makes an edit for the purpose to see "if they can actually make an edit in Wikipedia". If Tim is in the article then place {{subst:uw-npov1}} on the editor talk page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 8: {{subst:uw-biog1}} for adding unsourced controversial info to a BLP.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (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}}, since they haven't had any warnings but should have had 4 by now.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: No warning, instead report to WP:AIV with the reason vandalism after final warning.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (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 and bring the user to WP:ANI, since the user has continued to be problematic. Make sure to notify the user.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 12: {{subst:uw-image1}} for image-related vandalism.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (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: Revert and ignore it, since this is the first personal attack it is better to WP:DENY recognition.

. As it is a personal attack, report them toWP:ANI. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

14. A user adds "Italic text to Sydney

Answer 14: {{subst:uw-mos1}}, I would also leave a note explaining where italic text should be used and asking them to see MOS:ITALIC for more information.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} for blatant vandalism not in good faith.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

#	Type	Diff of your revert	Your comment - If you report to AIV please include the diff	CASS' Comment
Example	Unsourced	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} plus explanation/justification/link to guidelines
16	Test edit	[41]	Reverted with good faith link and warned user here with {{subst:uw-test1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
17	Test edit	[42]	Despite previous activity from the IP, they hadn't edited in a month, so assumed in good faith that they could be a different person and warned with {{subst:uw-test1}}	N. If the editor has made few edits before and especially the warnings the editors have received - see - here that is considered a vandalism edit. The edit of the IP/user name is what matters and not the actual editor as we have no idea who edited the page - Just as if you are logged on Wikipedia, and step away to make a cup of coffee and your friend or little 8 y/0 brother makes a vandalism edit, the warning will be placed on your user page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
18	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[43]	IP repeatedly inserted their opinion into articles after being given several warnings, reported to AIV here, was archived after no response for seven hours. (Let me know if you want me to redo this one.)	{{tick}. The editor has many warning and it was the bot removed the report which I think the editor should have received a short block. I gave a check for this one. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
19	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[44]	IP had been given {{subst:uw-vandalism4}}, so reported to AIV here noting vandalism after final warning; after checking contribs, IP had only made vandalism edits, so added that reason as well. IP blocked for 31 hours.	{{tick}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
20	WP:NPOV	[45]	Reverted with edit summary and warned user here with {{subst:uw-npov1}}	N. That is not a NPOV but a vandalism edit as the editor said the subject was a pig. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
21	WP:Fringe theories	[46]	Reverted user using unreliable sources to back up a fringe claim, warned here with {{subst:uw-disruptive1}}.	Y. I am not familiar with the subject, so I would refer to your edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
22	WP:SPAM	[47]	Reverted and warned user here with {{subst:uw-spam1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
23	Talking on the article	[48]	Reverted with summary and warned user here with {{subst:uw-talkinarticle}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
24	Unsourced	[49]	Unsourced WP:BLP edit, reverted and warned user here with {{subst:uw-biog2}}, as this edit was clearly not made in good faith.	Y. Also consider a disruptive/vandalism edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
25	General vandalism	[50]	Reverted and warned user here with {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
26	Promo	[51]	Reverted and warned user here with {{subst:uw-advert2}} as this was clearly not made in good faith	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
27	General vandalism	[52]	Reverted and warned user here with {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
28	Vandalism	[53] [54]	Had already been warned with 4im and reported to WP:AIV, so continued reverting while waiting	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
29	WP:NPOV	[55]	Reverted and warned user here with {{subst:uw-npov1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
30	Blanking	[56]	Reverted and warned user here with {{subst:uw-delete1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Part 3 (10%)

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

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

Answer 1: G11—unambiguous promotion

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

Answer 2: A7—no claim of significance (people)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

3. Joe goes to England and comes home !

Answer 3: A7—no claim of significance (people/events maybe)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: G3—clear hoax, doesn't exist

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

5. Fuck Wiki!

Answer 5: G3—obvious vandalism

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

What would you do in the following circumstance:

6. A user blanks a page they very recently created

Answer 6: Tag for CSD under G7 since they are (presumably) the only major contributor and page blanking can be taken as a deletion request.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: Replace the G7 tag and warn the user with {{subst:uw-speedy1}} since they removed a tag from a page they created.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (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: First replace the tag and warn with {{subst:uw-afd1}}, since they removed the notice from an article

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 9: Continue warning with increasing levels of uw-afd, and if they continue after level 4, report to WP:AIV.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: Tag with G13—abandoned drafts and AfCs

. Do check the subject, content and source first, if the subject is likely notable and there are source to support it, then make a dummy edit and put "delay G13" on the edit summary. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Part 4 (10%)

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

1. TheMainStreetBand

Answer 1: If their contributions are in good faith, leave {{subst:uw-coi-username}} on their talk page; if they are promoting, this is a blatant violation and should be reported to WP:UAA.

. Place a {{subst:uw-coi-username}} on their talk page and ask them to change their username. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

2. Poopbubbles

Answer 2: On its own, the username is probably fine, so leave it alone. (If they are making bad faith edits, follow general procedure for dealing with vandalism.)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

3. Brian's Bot

Answer 3: Usernames implying a bot are prohibited, so if this account isn't a real bot, report to UAA.

. Do check their user page first so see to verify if this is not a legitimate bot account under the WP:bot policy. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

Answer 4: This could be considered a disruptive username, as it may make it difficult to work harmoniously with other editors, but as it is not very serious, leave {{subst:uw-username}} on their talk page.

. If the editor make vandalism edits or egregious descriptive edits then I will report it to [WP:UAA]]. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

5. Bobsysop

Answer 5: Since I know this is a new username, it is highly unlikely that they are an admin, so ask them to change it since it's misleading and report to UAA if they refuse.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

6. 12, 23 June 2012

Answer 6: Looks like a timestamp, so would fall under misleading usernames; like above, ask them to change, then report to UAA.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

7. PMiller

Answer 7: Using a real name is generally fine, but if this is impersonation, it should be reported to UAA.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

8. OfficialJustinBieber

Answer 8: Clearly violates policy as impersonation of Justin Bieber, so report to UAA.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

9. The Dark Lord of Wiki

Answer 9: Does not violate policy, leave it alone.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

10. I love you

Answer 10: ~~# Like the one above, leave it.~~ (You left that accidentally, so I struck it to leave my own response.) Again, does not break policy, so no action taken.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Part 5 (10%)

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

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

Answer 1: Per WP:3RRNO, reverting obvious vandalism does not count towards the three-revert rule for edit warring, but if another good-faith user disagrees that the edit is vandalism, you could get in an edit war.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 2: Vandalism-only accounts should be reported to WP:AIV with the reason "vandalism-only account".

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

Answer 3: Incidents of complex abuse should be brought to WP:ANI with a note left on the talk pages of involved editors and relevant diffs..

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: Blatant username violations should be reported at WP:UAA.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 5: If the account has only made bad-faith/vandalism edits, they should be reported at WP:AIV with the reason "vandalism-only account"; otherwise, file a report at WP:ANI with a talk page warning and relevant diffs.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 6: Edit warring should be reported at WP:ANEW with diffs of edit warring and the 3RR warning given to them. Also make sure to notify the reported editor at their talk page and to include diffs of attempting to resolve the issue at the article's talk page.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: WP:BLP policy violations should be reported at WP:BLPN.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 8: Sock puppetry should be reported at WP:SPI by creating or adding a new report to the case page for the oldest account and including diffs indicating possible sock puppetry.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 9: Requests for page protection are handled at WP:RFPP.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: Like question 6, 3RR violations should be reported at WP:ANEW with diffs of edit warring and the 3RR warning given to them. Also make sure to notify the reported editor at their talk page and to include diffs of attempting to resolve the issue at the article's talk page.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Part 6 - Theory in practice (40%)

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

Answer 1: Jeff Lewis (real estate speculator)—requested semi-protection here

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 2: Mars 2020—requested semi-protection here

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 3: List of Hunter × Hunter characters—requested semi-protection here

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 4: Julian Le Fay—requested indef PC protection here

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 5: Nicole Aniston–requested temp PC protection here (apologies for mobile diff)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 6: Good faith edit—reverted user changing "kind of" to "kind've" in a quote here with edit summary, welcomed IP here

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 7: Self-revert—user reverted themselves here, gave them standard welcome template here

. the editor made the 3rd edit and was warned -- see here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 8: Explained at report here, please also see this relevant diff

IP hoping - see result - here. Page protected but no edit warring block. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 9: Other editors tried to discuss at IP's talk page, but IP was blanking and continuing to edit war; reported here.

Remember to place edit warring warring on the third edit on their talk page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 10 promotion: tagged Zeros and Ones for promo here, CSD log entry, warned user here

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 11 copyvio violation: tagged Suba Khan Tanoli here, CSD log entry, warned user here

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 12 copyvio violatio: tagged Portrait of Doge Pietro Loredan here, CSD log entry, warned user here (user removed copyvio text, and since they were able to leave substantial article text, I removed the tag and requested RevDel)

page was not deleted under G12 but copyvio content reverted by admin - see here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 13 Your choice: G1 (patent nonsense): tagged Railway Information Systems (JR Systems) here, CSD log entry, warned user here (deleted under A3)

G1 and G3 are not the same thing even thought the page has been deleted. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 14 Your choice: G12 (copyvio): tagged Hub Network (TV channel) here, CSD log entry, warned user here

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: reported User:Codenamerecords here

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 16: reported CAPSLOCK SOFTWARE here

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 17: reported SBA GAMING PRIVATE LIMITED here

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 18: reported Vickie Studios here

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

5th answer: reported Al Midrar Institute here

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 19: Edit warring is generally unconstructive, as it generates anger and makes it more difficult for editors to work harmoniously to reach consensus.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 20: If two editors disagree on the content in article, they could end up reverting each other indefinitely, which becomes an edit war until someone stops it. Edit warring can also occur when the participants try to discuss using edit summaries rather than discussing on the talk page, rather than following the WP:BRD cycle.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 21: Living people have to suffer the implications of any false information or defamation published on their Wikipedia pages, and serious violations could be illegal or could encourage the subject to sue. Vandals can also breach the privacy of a subject by publishing information that shouldn't be publicly visible. As a result, BLPs should be monitored heavily for vandalism.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 22: At first, WP:DENY recognition to the trolls, but if they continue, report to WP:AIV. Keep your temper even if receiving personal attacks, as being hostile to the editor will only aggravate you and them more.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer 23: You should deny recognition because trolls may only be looking to get a rise out of you, and feeding the trolls only encourages them.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 24: Semi protection allows any confirmed or autoconfirmed user to edit a page and only prevents IPs and new accounts from editing. In contrast, full protection keeps everyone but admins from editing a page and is only used in very serious incidents of edit warring and other disputes.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 25: Personal attacks increase animosity and are ultimately disruptive to the goal of the project, as they often drive conversation away from the actual topic in favor of simply insulting editors.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02, See Final exam above. Do provide explanation/justification/link to guidelines and hist diffs where is necessary. All the best! Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, looking at part 6, questions 8 and 9 ask me to report 2 instances of edit warring to ANI, but I was under the impression (and WP:EW states) that edit warring should be reported to WP:ANEW. Would you like me to report to ANI or ANEW? Thanks, Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 02:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02, Thank you for informing, it should be WP:ANEW. My mistakes. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I should be done with the exam here soon, but I've had particular trouble finding edit warring. Do you have any tips on where to look for users who could be edit warring? Thanks, Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 15:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Pupsterlove02, There are a few ways to find edit warring edits.

(1) When you work on vandalism, do check the history page/log and see if any editors involve in edit warring or reverted each other edits a few times in recent history (it could be on the same day or several days without bringing the talk page). If the editors have not violate the editing warring guidelines, then you can place the page on your watchlist and track for their future edits.

(2) If you come across a page, usually a popular page/recent controversy content or subject, and there seems to have some edit warring/content dispute going on, then track the page and editor.

(3) Example of edit warring - see history page of Cris Cyborg from February 23, 2021‎ to February 27, 2021‎.

Hope the above help. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I think I'm finally done with the exam...let me know if I've left any questions blank. Thanks, Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 15:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Final score

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage
1	15	12	15%	12%
2	30	27.5	30%	27.5%
3	10	10	10%	10%
4	10	10	10%	10%
5	10	10	10%	10%
6	25	243	40%	23%
TOTAL	100	92.5	100	92.5%

Completion

Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction! You have now graduated from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy and completed your final exam with 92.5%. 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 Pupsterlove02 It's been a pleasure to work with you over the past few months. I hope you gained something from this CVUA program. Do download WP:Huggle if you havent as this is a great vandalism tool to use. You can request for Wikipedia:Rollback right here and do mention you have passed the CUVA and mention my name in case the admin need to verify. I use both Twickle and Huggle but they do not have all the warning templates install in the system. So when require, manually subst them. to Do drop by my talk page you have any questions as I am here to help. Best of luck, and thank you so much for your willingness to help Wikipedia in this role. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:27, 5 May 2021 (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.