User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/WPEditor42

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/WPEditor42.

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've enabled Twinkle. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs • CentralAuth) 00:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism

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

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

Answer: Vandalism is disruptive editing that is meant to harm Wikipedia (for example, blanking pages for no reason, adding obscenities, and abusing tags), while good faith edits are made by users who intend to help Wikipedia, but the edits do not comply with a policy such as no original research and neutrality.

. 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. Same as adding unsourced content is not vandalism. However, continueing edit disruptively and adding unsourced after warnings, the editors could be reported and baned from editing. 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 01:54, 1 September 2022 (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) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canoeing_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics&diff=233040559, test edit WPEditor42 (talk • contribs • CentralAuth) 15:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 01:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-XSS&diff=next&oldid=1104899970, user added content unrelated to the subject. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs • CentralAuth) 22:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

. Typically, this type of edit is considered vandalsim. However, the the edit is the first edit the editor made and I believe they intention is good to inform there is something wrong but did not specified the matter in hand. Cassiopeia talk 01:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distant_retrograde_orbit&diff=1107569231, another test edit WPEditor42 (talk • contribs • CentralAuth) 18:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 01:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


Vandalism

Answer:

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_liquefaction&diff=5333798. The user blanked the page. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs • CentralAuth) 00:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 01:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_BWF_World_Championships&diff=1107168040, added impossible statistics (such as "1000000 gold medals") and other nonsense WPEditor42 (talk • contribs • CentralAuth) 15:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 01:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

(3) https://en.m.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=1577, page move vandalism WPEditor42 (talk • contribs • CentralAuth) 17:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The edit was from WikiNews and not English Wikipedia. Pls answer again.

Answer again: Removal of important content and adding random characters WPEditor42 (talk • contribs • CentralAuth) 10:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 03:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

WPEditor42 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. 1. You need to provide reasons, hist diffs - see diffs for instructions, of the/your edit and communication/warnings messages of the involved editor talk page for your answers. 2. (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. 3. pls note that the motto of CUVA is "Civility – Maturity – Responsibility." Welcome to CUVA. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 23:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia I have finished the assignment Good faith and vandalism. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs • CentralAuth) 18:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

WPEditor42 See comment above and answer again the last question. When provide hist diff, pls house the link with open and close square bracket - like this [... ink....], you can add info about the hist diff by add at least a space then type the info before the close bracket. See examples below

hist diff with bracket (view in source editing mode) - [1]

hist diff with bracket with info (view in source editing mode) - added impossible statistics

ping when you have finished with the last question. Cassiopeia talk 01:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia I've finished it. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs • CentralAuth) 12:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

WPEditor42 Reviewed. Let me know if if you have any questions of you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Cassiopeia talk 03:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: No, I don't have any questions to move to the next assignment. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 16 September 2022 (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: We warn users so they can know one or more edits they made are disruptive or otherwise violate Wikipedia's policies, and to encourage them to not make disruptive edits. Also, it is used to notify blocked users they have been blocked. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

. The purpose is to "educate" the editors on constructive editing, especially those who are new to Wikipedia and to "deter" them of such actions with stronger warnings leads up to a block. Cassiopeia talk 05:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer: In case of excessive or continuous disruption from a user or IP address. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 05:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer: Yes. It can be done like this: {{SUBST:template name|...}} WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC): Y. Cassiopeia talk 05:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

. Yes, it should be used always so that the message on the users talk page does not change even if the template you used were to be altered at a later date. Cassiopeia talk 05:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer: Administrators should block the user indefinitely and warn the user using the appropriate block template. Non-administrators should report the user to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 05:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer i: {{subst:Uw-unsourced1}}[2] which is for users who added content without reliable sources backing its claims. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

. Pls also provide the edited page - see here [3]. Cassiopeia talk 05:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer ii: {{subst:Uw-vandalism4}},[4] for users who have vandalized for the fourth time. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

. Pls also provide the edited page - see here [5]. Cassiopeia talk 05:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Answer iii: {{subst:Uw-username}},[6] for users with usernames that violate Wikipedia's username policy. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Pls answer again as we will look at the username assignment in the later date.

Answer again - {{subst:uw-delete2}},[7] used when a user deletes content in a page without an explanation for the second time. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 08:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

WPEditor42 See assignment 2 above. Cassiopeia talk 23:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia, I've finished assignment 2. I have no questions before continuing to the next one. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

WPEditor42 will review either today or tmr. Cassiopeia talk 04:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

WPEditor42 Pls see the comments above. You need to answer again on the last question. Pls note when you provide hist diff (internal links) you need to nest the URL in open and close square bracket - I have correct them (see your answers on Q-5). You also need to provide the edited page hist diffs. Ping when you have done the last questions. Cassiopeia talk 05:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

WPEditor42 Ping again and pls see the above message and reply. Cassiopeia talk 01:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I answered the last question again. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Tools

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

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

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

Twinkle

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

User creation log

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

Rollback

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

STiki

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

Huggle

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

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

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

Assignment

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

#	Type	Diff of your revert	Your comment - If you report to AIV please include the diff	CASS' Comment
Example	Unsourced	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
1	Test edit	[8]	It appears the user who made the edit is a newcomer and just found out that they can edit Wikipedia and made a (however unconstructive) edit to test editing. User has been warned.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 11:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
2	Test edit	[9]	User has changed some letters and deleted content in the page, probably because they found out they can edit Wikipedia and made a test edit. The user has been warned.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 11:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
3	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[10]	I assumed good faith while reverting the edit, however, it's actually possible vandalism, checking the other edits from the IP address. The user has been warned. The IP address was reported to WP:AIV for persistent vandalism and blocked for 1 month. The reason for the block is that it is possibly a school IP address.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 11:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
4	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[11]	The user has repeatedly vandalized the page, and has been reported to WP:AIV, and blocked for 31 hours.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 11:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
5	WP:NPOV	[12]	The user who made the reverted edit claims Cris Collinsworth is "the worst [...]", clearly expressing a non-neutral point of view. The user has been warned.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 11:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
6	WP:NPOV	[13]	The user who made the reverted edit has added an unencyclopedic term "one of the greatest", and has been warned	Y. Cassiopeia talk 11:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
7	WP:SPAM	[14]	The user who made the reverted edits added a spam link, and has been warned.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 11:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
8	Talking on the article	[15]	The user who made the reverted edit introduced themselves and said that "things are not right". Clearly talking on the article.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 11:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
9	Unsourced	[16]	Added the supposed cause of the death of Jaycee Chan, but didn't cite a reliable source. The user has been warned.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 11:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
10	Your Choice	[17]	The user who made the reverted edit repeatedly replaced images in articles with the "Shiitakegrowing.jpg" image, from multiple IP addresses, until blocked. Here's the link to the user warning.	Y. vandalism. Cassiopeia talk 11:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
11	Your Choice	[18]	Most probably a joke edit, the user who made the edit has been warned.	Y. or vandalism edit also unsourced. Cassiopeia talk 11:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
12	Your Choice	[19]	Another reverted joke edit, changing the name from "Antonoff" to "Anton Off". I found it funny. The user has been warned.	Y. Test edit. Cassiopeia talk 11:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
13	Your Choice	[20]	The user who made the reverted edit has removed content for no reason, and has been warned.	Y. vandalism. Cassiopeia talk 11:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
14	Your Choice	[21][22]	Vandalism, user has been warned	Y. Cassiopeia talk 11:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
15	Your Choice	[23]	Unexplained content removal, user has been warned.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 11:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

WPEditor42 Good day. See assignment 3 above. If Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. Pls provide hist diff (article page and editor talk page) and reasons. Cassiopeia talk 08:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I have finished this assignment. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

WPEditor42 Reviewed. Well-done!. Let me know if you are ready for the next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 11:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I'm ready for the next assignment. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 14 December 2022 (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 WPEditor42, Posted Assignment 4 above. No exercises for this assignment but only some reading material. Once you have done reading, pls let me know so I would post Assignment 5 for you. Cheers. Cassiopeia talk 12:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I've read and understood the assignment. I'm ready for the next assignment. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 14 December 2022 (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: We should deny recognition to vandals because recognition of vandalism may lead other people to do try it for themselves. We should deny recognition to trolls because recognition and attention is what they usually seek by trolling. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 11:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer: I can tell the difference by their intentions. A good faith user reverting an edit would revert the edit for a good reason and would explain appropriately why the edit was reverted, while a troll trying to harass me wouldn't. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

. Sometimes it is difficult to know if an editor edited the page is based on good or bad faith. We can look at their contribution log and talk page to see the behaviour of the editor to understand the nature of their edits especially when we could not tell if it is a disruptive edits or just being not knowing how to edits/know the guidelines. Do note sometimes good faith editor do get upset when we reverted their edit and place a warning message and convey their message which might not be pleasant for your standard. Many times troll might not use personal attacks but being rude, condescending, put down, name calling and etc. To check on the editors past edits/talk page would help; however, the bottom line is that trolls want to annoy you and good faith editors annoyed at you and that is the subtle different. Cassiopeia talk 11:17, 16 December 2022 (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: When one encounters a threat of physical harm on Wikipedia, one should contact the Wikimedia Foundation, privately, at Special:EmailUser/Emergency or at the e-mail address emergency wikimedia.org, providing the exact name of the page (or the link to the page or diff) where the threat was saw and the time it was saw. If one is in immediate danger, they should also call local emergency services. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 11:17, 16 December 2022 (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: If it looks like a threat of harm, the Wikimedia Foundation should still be contacted. Wikimedia Foundation staff will determine whether the threat is empty or not. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 11:17, 16 December 2022 (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: Sockpuppetry takes several forms, such as block or ban evasion, using multiple accounts to circumvent policies (such as the three-revert rule), using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny, using multiple accounts to edit pages or articles in a way that suggests that the accounts are operated by multiple people, using one account for constructive edits and another for unconstructive edits, and other forms. Sockpuppetry can be reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 11:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi WPEditor42, see Assignment 5 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 01:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I have finished this assignment. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi WPEditor42 Reviewed. See comments. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 11:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I'm ready to move on to the next assignment. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion

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

Protection

Please read the protection policy. Done

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

Answer: A page should be semi-protected when it is subject to persistent vandalism or disruption by unregistered or new (neither autoconfirmed nor confirmed) users and blocking individual users isn't feasible, when it is subject to edit warring and all parties involved are unregistered or new users, and/or to prevent sockpuppets of blocked or banned users from editing. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

, Reasons as per above regardless by the involvement are registered or IP editors. Cassiopeia talk 01:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

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

: Answer: A page should be pending changes protected when it is subject to persistent vandalism, violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy or copyright violations, and is not edited frequently. Please note that pending changes level 1 protection has been renamed to pending changes protection. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC); Y.the key is low volume vandalism but persistence over a period of time (a few days to a few weeks). Cassiopeia talk 01:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Answer: A page should be fully protected in case of persistent disruption from extended confirmed users. Administrators may fully protect a page that has been deleted and then temporarily restored during deletion review. Generic file names, such as File:Photo.jpg and File:Example.jpg are fully protected to prevent vandalism. User pages of users who are deceased should be fully protected. 00:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

. Full protection prevents anyone except administrators from editing the page.. This applies when there is serious disruption that cannot be addressed by using a lower level of protection or blocking the involved users, such as due to large scale edit warring or content disputes, or persistently being vandalized by users who have gamed the extended confirmed system. Cassiopeia talk 01:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Answer: A page should be creation protected when it has been deleted and repeatedly recreated. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 01:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Answer: Article talk pages may be temporarily semi-protected in the most severe cases of vandalism, and user talk pages may be semi-protected in severe cases of vandalism or abuse. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 01:22, 15 February 2023 (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 (pls state criteria): Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives [24][25] - Persistent vandalism from unregistered and new users. The article has been semi-protected for 3 months. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 01:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Answer ii (pls state criteria): Bart Scott [26][27] - Persistent disruptive editing and violations of the biographies of living persons policy from unregistered users. The article has been semi-protected for 3 months. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 01:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD. Done

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

Answer: A page should be speedy deleted when it has no practical chance of surviving a deletion discussion and administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Pls answer again by reading WP:CSD and briefly list all the criteria.

Answer again: Patent nonsense, pure vandalism, blatant hoaxes, previously deleted pages, pages created by banned or blocked users, attack pages and pages that are pure copyright infringement or advertising may be deleted. Pages may also be deleted for uncontroversial maintenance reasons, such as deleting redirects blocking page moves. The author of a page may request its speedy deletion. The Wikimedia Foundation office under exceptional circumstances may speedily delete pages. Drafts and AfC submissions that haven't been edited by a human in six months may be speedily deleted, except redirects. Unnecessary disambiguation pages may be deleted. Articles that have no content or context, non-English articles that exist in other Wikimedia wikis, articles that have no indication of importance and duplicated articles may be speedily deleted. Cross-namespace redirects, recently created redirects with implausible typos and unused redirects with names that match Wikimedia Commons pages may be speedily deleted. Redundant, corrupted, missing, empty and improperly licensed or copyright-infringing files may be deleted, as well as images available as identical copies on Wikimedia Commons, images without licensing information, a non-free use rationale or a valid fair-use claim and unused non-free images. Categories that have been unpopulated for seven days may be speedily deleted. In most cases, user pages may be speedily deleted upon request by its user. User pages from non-existent users and inappropriate user pages may also be speedily deleted. The speedy deletion criteria that applies for articles also apply for portals. Portals that are underpopulated may be speedily deleted. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 21:51, 16 February 2023 (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): User:Sloughwriter [28] - Unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSD G11) WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 01:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Answer ii (copyvio): Draft:Van Calebs [29] - Unambiguous copyright infringement (CSD G12) WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 01:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Answer iii (any criteria - pls state): Firuzleestar [30] - No indication of importance (CSD A7) and unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSD G11) WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 01:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Answer iv (any criteria - pls state): User:BIG85north [31] - Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host (CSD U5) WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 01:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

WPEditor42, See Assignment 6 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 23:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Cassiopeia: I have finished this assignment and I'm ready for the next one. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

WPEditor42, Kindly re-answer "Speedy deletion" -CSD Q1 again and let me know you have done. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 01:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have re-answered the question. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

JWPEditor42, Reviwed and see notes section below. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk

Notes

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

G12 (copyvio) -

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

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

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

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

1. Audi infringed copyright violation over Eminem’s song “Lose Yourself” in their commercial advertising. [32]

2. Audi was fined US $ 965,000 over copyright infringement for using 10 words from Brian Andreas’s story of “Angel of Mercy” - [33]

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

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

Usernames

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

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

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

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

Answer: This username is appropriate, unless the username refers to someone else who is not the account owner. If it refers to someone else who is not the account owner, it is a misleading username that impersonates other people. Real names and stage names are allowed by the Wikipedia username policy as long as they do not impersonate other people. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 03:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Answer: This username is promotional and implies shared use because it identifies an organization rather than an individual. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

. "Violation of the username policy as a username that implies shared use". Cassiopeia talk 03:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Answer: This username is offensive or disruptive because it contains profanity. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk 03:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Answer: This username implies shared use and identifies a group (the staff of a company) rather an individual. Shared accounts are not allowed on Wikipedia. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

. Write to the user and brief him/her about Wikipedia username policy and advise him/her to change the username should the user edits are constructive and not violate NPV. (b)If the user edits is aimed to advertise and promote Coles then report it toWP:UAA. Cassiopeia talk 03:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Answer: This username is inappropriate because it expands to one's signature and if one types the username on a Wikipedia page, it will show their signature, not the username. Furthermore, page titles containing ~~~ (three tildes) are invalid. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

. Nowadays, these types of usernames are automatically disallowed, so you won't stumble across them. Cassiopeia talk 03:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Answer: This username is misleading because it can be confused with unregistered editors that are identified by their IP addresses. This username resembles an IP address. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

. Nowadays, these types of usernames are automatically disallowed, so you won't stumble across them. Cassiopeia talk

Answer: This username is disruptive. It appears to be a personal attack. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia talk

WPEditor42, See assignment 7 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 21:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have answered this assignment and I'm ready for the next one. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

WPEditor42, Reviewed and see the comments above. Cassiopeia talk 03:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Progress test

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

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

Scenario 1

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

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

Answer: If it is properly sourced it's not vandalism, however, if it is unsourced, it is usually vandalism. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)