User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Kalariwarrior

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/Kalariwarrior.

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

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

Twinkle
Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.
 * Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.
 * , I have enabled WP:TWINKLE.

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, WP:VANDALISM and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.

Answer:
 * Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
 * From what I have understood, a good faith edit is an edit that is within the guidelines of WP:AGF, in that all edits are to be assumed to be made in an effort to improve Wikipedia and the quality of the information in it. Just because an editor disagrees with an edit, or an edit goes against a policy of Wikipedia, does not mean that it is vandalism, or that it is done with any malicious intent.
 * Vandalism edits, on the other hand, are edits that aim to hinder the Wikipedia project in some way. Vandalism edits can come in a variety of forms, such as image vandalism, gaming vandalism, etc. These edits usually involving the removing of material entirely from Wikipedia articles, or changing an article beyond recognition without regard for Wikipedia's policies, or discussing it within a talk page. As for differentiating between the two, I would say that a good faith edit is one that is usually made by a newer user, or unknowingly, as is the case with copyright violations, and many other edits where the user just simply made a mistake, or just didn't know any better. Vandalism is generally more malicious in nature, and usually goes deeper than good faith edits by a user that doesn't know any better. Vandalism can extend to putting obscene images or text in a page, page blanking, or inserting nonsensical text into a page, etc. After learning more about it and reading through the articles, I admit that I myself may have made several errors in regards to good faith edits and vandalism. Unintentional as they may be, at least I can say that I have a better understanding of it now.
 * . The key here is "intention". If an editor intends to help Wikipedia, and the edit is considered disruptive, they are still considered a "good faith" editor especially the new editor does not aware their edits are disruptive. Editor might edit adds incorrect or unsourced information and this does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal. Vandalism is a "deliberate attempt" to harm Wikipedia. Cassiopeia(talk) 09:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. You don't need to revert the example you find, and I am happy for you to use previous undos in your edit history if you wish.
 * Good faith

Answer: (1) My first example of a good faith edit would be [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=994517894&oldid=994517152&title=Sylvester_Jr. here]. This editor, according to the diff, appears to have added the phrase "(silly, crazy)" to the beginning of the article about a cartoon character. While the nature of the cartoon character does appear to have a "silly, crazy" aspect to it, the entry of that phrase at the beginning of the article, that too in the name of the character, isn't very appropriate, and was also not given any source to reference such a change. However, the edit does not appear to have been done with any malicious intent, but merely an innocent attempt to emphasize the comical nature of the character. I think its safe to assume good faith here, even if it is out of place and needs to be reverted.
 * ✅.  Cassiopeia(talk) 04:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

(2) My second example of a good faith edit would be here. This editor inserted the phrase "Someday they hope to beat Stratford (the best school)" into an article about a school. Like the previous edit, this does not appear to be an edit done with malicious intent, and as such, I do not believe it can be classified as vandalism. Under the assumption of good faith, I believe the editor may just be someone who is enthusiastic about the school, and wants to contribute by listing one of the school's aspirations or goals (or their own aspirations in regards to the school), as part of the article. While I appreciate their enthusiasm, the phrase is out of place, and doesn't really belong there. It also could be said that that edit violates the policy of keeping the article neutral. The edit appears to have been made in good faith, but should be reverted due to those reasons.
 * ✅. Not only the phrase is not WP:NPOV and it is unsourced (WP:V which is one of the core Wikipedia policies.  Cassiopeia(talk) 04:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

(3) My third example of a good faith edit would be here. My instincts tell me that this is a good faith edit, but I feel like it comes closer to vandalism than the previous two examples. However, I do not believe there was any malice behind this edit. This editor inserted the phrase "Hi fun fact, My maddie is cuter then any maddie in the world," at the beginning of the article. This phrase seems to toe the line between good faith and vandalism, and I can logically see it being perceived either way. The editor responsible for the edit could very well be just an enthusiastic fan who wants to promote their favorite singer on the article. I do not see any openly libelous claims in their edits, nor do I see any particular malice in them, and as such, I think I would tentatively say that this was just a good faith edit, especially since the editor is anonymous, and the IP range they are editing from only has two edits on the same page. They might just be a new user who doesn't know any better.
 * . The editor has made the same edit on two article and even thought it is not a extremely malice vandalism, it would considered silly valdalism which is one of most prolific vandalism edits in Wikipedia. Cassiopeia(talk) 04:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

(4) As per your instructions, I have found another instance of what I believe to be a good faith edit here. The editor inserted the phrase, "Amon them SIRAJUL ISLAM MEDICAL is The BEST," at the beginning of the article. It appears that the editor is trying to promote a medical education institution on the page. While I do not believe this is a malicious edit, I think it is a similar situation as the 2nd example I put here, and that it could just be a good faith edit by an editor who isn't familiar with WP:NPOV, and is just wanting to promote their educational institution on the site. I would not consider this to be vandalism by any means.


 * At the first outset (per your hist diff version), we could take it as the editor might not know about WP:NPOV; however, if you check on the editor's talk page here, you could see there are a number of warning message for many months which indicate, the editor did make edits are not constructive before. And if you check the edits after your hist diff, the editor continues to made the same edit after receiing a few warning message. - The key is that when we are not sure, check the editor talk page and contribution log to understand editor editing behaviour and their history of editing.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 00:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

(5) As per your instructions, I've found what I think is a good faith edit here. It appears that the editor was trying to improve the wording, but has done so in a way that seems to mess up the flow of the article. It looks like the editor had a positive intent, but it hasn't come across in the best way.
 * . When an editor change the sourced content, we need to check the source against the edit. The source provided in the article is this one and as per source there are 2 terminal in the airport, for such it was a vandalism edit. Good faith edit would be something this where I place wrong heading (2.3 instead of 2.3.1), spelling mistakes, copy edit mistakes, adding extra line, adding/removing wrong words/phrase that against WP:MOS guidelines and etc.

(6)I think I'm starting to understand. Sorry for messing up this many times on this. It seems like its a lot easier for me to figure out vandalism than it is for me to figure out good faith edits. That being said, I think I've found a good faith edit here. In this edit, the editor adds a sentence to the article, but the edit contains a misspelled word (instead of using the word "populated" it uses the word "popular"). I found it while patrolling recent changes, but it seems that someone else reverted it before I could. I think this is a pretty solid example of a good faith edit, but please let me know if I'm wrong.
 * ✅. From the editor contribution log, it is a new editor and have no idea source is need to when adding/changing the content of a page. What we could do is to send a personal message and welcome page to provide some links/info for the editor to read - I have done it here - see here-1 and here-2. I will provide you some examples of good faith edits next time for your perusal so you may understand better.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 05:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Answer:
 * Vandalism

(1) First vandalism example is here. This one appears to be a clear example of vandalism, as the editor inserted the phrase "Death to Wikipedia" on it. Not only is the statement very out of place, but also shows a clear, malicious intent towards the entire Wikipedia project. I feel like this would not only be vandalism, but also a sort of violation of WP:NPA that applies to the entire Wikipedia community.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 04:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

(2) Second example of vandalism would here here. This seems to be a random edit meant to annoy or confuse other users, but appears to have been put in as a joke, or simply to troll. I want to say that this is in a similar situation to the second example of good faith edits I put down above. However, this appears to have more of an intent to annoy or actively disrupt the flow of the article. As such, I think this is a light form of vandalism. Annoying, but not destructive or serious.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 04:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

(3) My final example of a vandalism edit is here. The editor simply entered a random bunch of letters, "WWWWWWW" to the beginning of the article. This is clearly a meaningless edit, and doesn't serve any purpose other than to disrupt the article. I think it'd be a good example of silly vandalism, or vandalism that falls under WP:NONSENSE.
 * . This is the first edit done by the editor and it is a typical test edit. A test edit - new editors enter random aplhabets or add/delete one character from the word or input "hello or hi" on the article and sometimes the editors revert their own edit on their second edit. Test edits is those edits the editor "trying to made an edit to see if thy can actually make an edit in Wikipedia".<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 04:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

(4) As per your instructions, I have found another instance of what I believe to be vandalism here. Here, the editor has simply changed the name of a fictional character entirely and added a totally unrelated name, and also added no source or reasoning for doing so. It appears to be a pretty standard example of silly vandalism.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 00:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

- Good day. (1) Any question regrading the assignment, please let me know here. For other questions not relating to the assignments, ping me on the talk page of this subpage  Here. (2) Do note, you need to provide the hist diff as per diffs guidelines and not you usual hist diff link. (3) pls note (important) - do not revert more than 3 times within 24 hours on the same article unless the edits are absolutely considered blatant vandalisms for you will be blocked from editing. If you are not sure about the edits (whether it is a vandalism or not", pls do nothing and let other more experience/counter vandalism editors to take action. (5), pls note that the motto of CUVA is "Civility – Maturity – Responsibility." Welcome to CUVA.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the welcome ! I admit that I've learned a fair bit even after reading these articles so far. I'm a little ashamed to say that I might have made a few mistakes regarding good faith edits and vandalism myself. I'm happy to say I know a bit better now. Also, were the diffs I provided sufficient? I'm not overly familiar with the usage of diffs yet, so this was actually my first time really using them. As of now though, I think I'm done with this assignment, unless I made a mistake or something.
 * Good day. Pls also elaborate each of your answer to justify/explain/e/reasons of your answers - (note: make sure you do the same for all the answers for all the Assignments). Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 09:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , all answers have now been elaborated upon to explain my reasoning. I'll do so for all answers on all assignments in the future. Let me know if there is anything else I need to do! Thanks!
 * , Do note that although unsourced/destructive edits are not considered vandalism, but if a same editor continues many such edits after receiving many warnings on their talk page, they could be blocked from editing. Secondly, many editors make silly mistakes on template or wrong WP:MOS which would considered good faith edits. Checking on editors talk pages and their contribution log would usually give us the understand the history and the behaviour of the editor and we could make the judgmental call when it comes to certain edits that we are not sure it is a vandalism/destructive edits. Please try to find one more good faith and one vandalism edit and once you have done, pls ping me. Let me know if you have any question and stay safe.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 04:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , additional good faith and vandalism examples have been added. Please let me know if those are correct! Thanks for the advice! I understand that unsourced edits may not be vandalism, but wouldn't destructive edits be vandalism? Destructive edits, by their very nature, are done with malicious intent aren't they? Unless I'm not understanding it properly. Kalariwarrior (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , Good day. destructive same as unsourced or NPOV edits are not considered vandalism edits. However, as mentioned if the same editor continues to edit the same after many warning placed in their talk page, they could be blocked from editing. Communication is one way we educate the editor which we coudl inform the editor where by the warning templates are not specific enough (can provide a personal message with a warning message; or in their first destructive edit - we send a personal first, as it depends on the nature and serious of the destructive edit) for example, destructive edit could be the editor remove the "bold" of the article name on the WP:LEAD section as per WP:MOS guidelines, and after multiple message letting the editor know it is not adhere to WP:MOS guidelines, and the editor still continue to edit the same way, then that would considered destructive editing but it is a not a serious case. We always go back to the "intention" of the editor and check their contribution log and talk page to determine if their edit is intent to harm Wikipedia or not. If an editors continued to act the same way, they could be blocked from editing. If you are not sure about the edit, then leave it and let more experience counter vandalism editors or editors who know about the subject/article better to action. Pls provide one more good faith example (5) and ping me when you have done. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 00:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've added another instance of what I think is a good faith edit gone wrong. Let me know what you think! Kalariwarrior (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , See my comment and try again (6). Also note, removing of unsourced content is not an vandalism act unless majority of the page or the entire page is blanked. ping me when you have done GF question 6.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 06:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've added another example to question 6. Let me know what you think! Kalariwarrior (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Reviewed. See comments. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 05:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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


 * Please answer the following questions:
 * (1) Why do we warn users?


 * Answer: Users are usually warned for violating Wikipedia policy, typically for vandalism or disruptive editing. Warning can also be issued for other reasons such as violations of WP:NPV or for WP:NPA. Issued warnings can also vary on the type of vandalism, as well as the severity. Severe vandalism is often addressed with a higher level warning. Warnings for smaller incidents of vandalism or disruptive editing are usually issued to newer users, alongside a welcoming message. For lower level incidents, good faith is assumed while issuing the warning.
 * so that they will hopefully learn from the gentle warning at level 1 through to stricter warnings and possible block. We should remember that new editors may not be familiar with policies and it would be helpful to include a polite note

The purpose is to "educate" the editors on constructive editing, so that they will hopefully learn from the gentle warning at level 1 through to stricter warnings and possible block. We should remember that new editors may not be familiar with policies and it would be helpful to include a personal polite note especially those who are new to Wikipedia and to "deter" them of such actions and if same manner of edits continues then stronger warnings would be placed and leads up to a block.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 04:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


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


 * Answer:
 * A 4im warning is issued in severe cases of vandalism where multiple, continuous vandalism or disruptive editing occurs, and where bad faith is assumed. 4im warnings are issued as a first and only warning, and are generally issued to users who are responsible for excessive and continuous vandalism.


 * ✅. Right. 4im is only for widespread and particularly egregious vandalism and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 04:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * (3) Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?


 * Answer: A template should be substituted when using it on a user talk page, especially for user warning templates and welcoming templates. Substitutions are done by placing the text "subst" after the opening bracket, before the page name.
 * We should always substitute a template, by adding,  so that the message on the users talk page does not change even if the template the template has changed.~


 * (4) What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * Answer: The warned user should be reported to WP:AIV where the assigned administrators will review the edits of the warned user and determine whether or not to block the user.


 * (5) Please give examples and please do the substitution (using ) of three different warnings with three different levels (not different levels of the same warning and excluding the test edit warning levels referred to below), that you might need to use while recent changes patrolling and explain what they are used for.


 * Answer i: Information orange.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kalariwarrior (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 04:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Answer ii: Information.svg Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Kalariwarrior (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 04:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Kalariwarrior (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Answer iii: Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop your disruptive editing.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 04:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

-

See assignment 2 above. For question 5 - use (example)  subs three different templates (different warning and different level of warning}} see example below.  Stay safe and best

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

Have a wonderful New year 2021. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 06:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think I've finished the questions. Let me know if I missed any. Also, I had a question, when using warnings, what is the policy for editors who edit their user talk page to remove the warning? I've read conflicting reports on the subject. Some say it is okay to remove the warnings, while others say that it is not allowed. What should I do if a vandal or disruptive editor removes a warning?


 * , Editors are allowed to remove messages (including warning messages) on their talk page but not changing the messages from other editors. However, all edits, once you press save the message and it is published, will be stored in Wikipedia system and it can be viewed from the "history log" of the editor talk pages. Editors who always remove warning or messages that they were inform they done something wrong or hide their rude messages would be questions by admins when they request for certain user rights. We as the counter vandalism editors always check the editor contribution logs, talk pages and the history talk pages of the the editors when we (1) what to find out the past behavior of the editors when we are not sure about the edits they made is just mistakes or vandalism/disruptive as they talk pages and contribution would tell us a lot. If you see an editor talk page (on the edit version) where by the editor talk page is red colour which means no edit is made by anyone, however, it the "talk" blue colour and upon checking on their talk page and no message appear then check the talk page history log and it will show you, usually, editor removed the messages on their talk page. Let me know if you have any questions or you are reading to move to next assignment. Happy New Year. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 04:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , I’m a little confused. You said that “Editors are allowed to remove messages (including warning messages) on their talk page but not changing the messages from other editors.” What do you mean when you say that editors are not allowed to change the messages from other editors on their talk pages? I’m just trying to get an idea of what is allowed and what isn’t. If I were to issue a warning to an editor, then they removed it from their talk page for whatever reason (just to hide it) would they be wrong in doing that? Also, what should we do if a warning is issued unfairly? I remember reading something about editors who misuse and abuse warnings. Is it something that should be taken to WP:ANI? Or should something else be done? That’s my last question on this topic as far as I know, so I’m ready for the next assignment at any time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalariwarrior (talk • contribs) 04:18, December 23, 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sorry for not being clear.
 * (1) Delete messages from their won talk page: Editor is allowed to removed the messages from their talk page.
 * (2) Cant not change the message from other editors: The messages from other editor (the content) can not bee changed by the editor unless something like add addition " :" before the message so for an indentation to the right (like what I just done in this edit on your message above - which is not changing of you message/content). Leave the grammar mistakes as it is, if the editor want to clarify something then the editor should ask clarification from the sender.
 * (3) Placing wrong warning messages: Sometimes warning messages are sent to editor wrongly for reason (i) send to wrong editor (especially when you use Huggle and to quick to press the button where sometimes Huggle pointes to different editors), (ii) wrong warning message (such as it should be an unsourced warning message instead of a vandalism warning message) or (iii) other reasons. Editors are encouraged to contact the involved editor to clarify why the warning message being placed or provide reason that they had not done what was said in the warning message. The key here is communication in a civil manner to sort out the issues. If we place a wrong message or should not have place the message in the first place, when we have been informed, we need to apologies immediately, and take note not to do that again. I have done many times of such actions myself and many due to click to fast in Huggle when Huggle pointed on the last editor's edit instead the one I was just click.


 * However, if a warning message is deliberately placed due to a troll, especially from the editor we just placed a warning message and not because they make a mistake because they want to try out how to place a message or other reasons), then either ignore it and states it is a troll in the edit summary if you want to remove from your talk page. However, if the editors continues to add another same warning without good reason, then place a personal warning message on their talk page. If the same editor continues to do the same again, then you can bring it the issues to WP:ANI. To say all that, usually, if it is a troll, the editor would vandalize many edits/pages which they would be report to WP:AIV and be blocked form editing. I have never encourter the same editor place warning message on my talk page many times in a row. Another advice - ANI is the last resort after many communication/discussion with the involved editor fails to achieve a consensus agreement/understanding and the issue is to big to ignore. If in any way, we could solve the issue/ignore the issue then do not go to ANI for it is a very emotional charged environment for many times the issue could be sorted out but it also leave you emotional drained and exhausted for sometimes the conversation in the ANI might not be that pleasant. Again here communication is the key in the editor's talk page or the article talk page first or try to find a mediator who know the subject of the article well or the editor who are very experience. Let me know if you have further questions. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 04:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

-

Tools
Recent changes patrol 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.

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:, and.

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

--


 * Good day. If Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. Pls provide article name, hist diffs, editor talk page where you place the warning message, reports hist diffs and any links. Aslo, pls provide the reasons/justification/explanate of your answers. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 04:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry for the late response. Things have been very busy for me lately, but I am more or less back now. I'm a little confused about what I should do here. Should I find the edits according to what is given in the graph, revert them, and post the diff for the reverted edit, or the warning? I have gone ahead and answered one of the NPOV issues, and provided a diff for the revert that I made, along with a comment about why I reverted it. I also warned the user in question, with a level that I thought was appropriate, as the editor already has a talk page with multiple warnings on it. Will something like this be sufficient for all of the other questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user&#32;January 1, 2021‎ Kalariwarrior
 * Welcome back. As per your question - find the edits as per the questions given in the table, revert them and post warning on editor talk page. In English Wikipedia, the warning level is a flexible which means you could place level 2 or 3 instead of level 1 even that is the first warning of the month they would receive. However, we always place level 1 and continue increase the warning level if the editor continue with vandalism edit. We place level 2 or three when the editor's edit involved in appalling vandalism in nature or the editor has been warned many times in past many many months. To say all that, if you are not sure about the edits, then do nothing and let other counter vandalism editors or more experienced editors who know more about the subjects to action. Two things always keep in mind when doing counter vandalism work (1) "intention" try to understand/see what is the "intention" of the editor (back to assignment 1) (2) "AFG" - AGF especially for new editor. (3) "communication is important" - We can always write a personal message to the editor to explain what wrong with their edits if the warning message is not clear/specific enough to explain their edits. Let me know if you have any other questions. Happy new year and stay safe. Best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , quick question. When I'm issuing warnings, I should put my signature (four of these ~ symbols) after any issued warnings right? Or do I not have to do that?


 * , I'm not sure if you saw my last tag, but I'm having a little trouble finding a WP:MOS example and one more serious vandalism case to report to WP:AIV. Until now, I've been monitoring the recent changes page to find all of my edits, but I'm unable to find examples of these. Do you know any other places I could look? Thanks. Kalariwarrior (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You have 3 questions left to answer. (1) MOS - You need to read about WP:MOS guidelines first, which is a lengthy reading, so you would understand many MOS guidelines. Adding incorrect MOS in Wikipedia is a very common thing new editor do, so if would not be hard to find. (2) SPAM - adding spam and (3) to report vandalism to AIV is also a easy to find, all you have to do is to stay on recent changes edits long enough to find them. Vandalism happens for frequently during night time in weekend (US time zone) as the traffic in Wikipedia is the highest. If you see an editor (check their contribution log) where by they have already made a few vandalism edits and warnings have been placed on their talk page, then track their movement to see if they would continue the same acts which would lead to a report to AIV. This is counter vandalism program, which means to find vandalism edit and to report them is one of the main objective here. So just spend more time to find them. My experience was that if I spend 90 mins on counter vandalism work in any particular night, I would revert and warn about 200 to 250 edits, thought I am a little more experience and could do that a little easy and fast, but it would not be hard for you if you try. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 00:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

sorry for the delay, but I answered the last three questions and provided the associated diffs. Please let me know if there’s any corrections I need to make. Kalariwarrior (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for informing. Will check the answer tmr or the next day. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 09:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Great! Just ping me once you have had the chance to look at the answers. Stay safe. Kalariwarrior (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * see comments and below. When you have done then ping me.
 * {Pls provide all hist diffs (normal) (like in example 1 and 2)
 * {Q11-Q15 pls provide info of "Your choice"
 * {Q16 - pls answer additional questions
 * <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 06:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Havent seen you working on the questions above, pls let me know if you need any help. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 23:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. I’ve been struggling with a family member who tested positive with COVID-19. I’ll try to work on it later this evening. I apologize for any inconvenience caused.
 * Sorry to heard about your family issues. No worries, personal life comes first. When all is settled of your personal life issues, then come back. no rush. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 23:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

, sorry for the late reply. I'm currently in India at the moment, and things have just been horrible here for the past 2 months with COVID. Right now I'm in lockdown, so I figured that now is as good a time as any to try to finish my CVU training. I was looking at some of the changes you wanted on some of my answers, but I'm a little lost on how to properly provide a diff, since you said that I wasn't providing them correctly. What is the proper way to do it? Kalariwarrior (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry that India is facing a hard time at the moment, many waves of covid will come and go. Just hang on there. The hist diff on your answer #15 is the one I am looking for and not the #17. When you have answer all the questions then pls ping me. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 00:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have corrected all the diffs, as well as provided a new answer/diff for the question about test edits. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Kalariwarrior (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi give me a few days to look at your answers as I am moving to another city at the moment.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 21:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , no worries. Take your time! :) Kalariwarrior (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking a little longer than usual to review your answer as I was travelling, then moving back to Sydney. It has been a busy last 3 week. See the comment above and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 11:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's totally fine! Moving is a tough job, so feel free to take your time with it. Would you like me to correct the mistake first? Or should we just move on to the next assignment? My main issue here appears to be finding a test edit, as the few I've found have ended up being reverted by other editors before I can get to them. I think I understand what they are, but I end up clutching at straws to find a proper example because they're often reverted by the time I click on them. I don't have any questions per say though. Kalariwarrior (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Test edit is the first edits that the new editor is trying to see "if they can actually make an edit" in Wikipedia. Editor usually change/add/remove a letter or number from a word/numbers or place "hi/hello/test". Sometimes the editors revert their own edit on their following edit and we called that a self-revert test edit. Pls answer addition 2 questions (Q17 and Q18). When you have done them, pls ping me.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 21:07, 28 May 2021 (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, 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.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 21:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Got it. I just finished reading through it. Feel free to post assignment 5 when you get the chance. Thanks!Kalariwarrior (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, Remember you still have to answer 2 test edit question on Assignment 3. When you have done them, pls ping me.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 00:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , I know, I haven't forgotten. I think I'll do the test edit questions before I do the next assignment, and then ping you when I'm done. I don't want to keep it pending. Thanks! Kalariwarrior (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, If you have completed Assignment 5 before you could find the 2 test edits for Assignment 3, then ping me at the communication section on Assignment 5 for I will review them.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 00:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

-

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.

Answer: Because giving them recognition (eg. Discussing vandalism or vandals on high profile discussions) can lead to imitators and others who want to try to attain some level of "infamy" by vandalizing and disrupting Wikipedia. This leads to an indirect glorification of vandals and vandalism, and will lead to more vandalism if recognized.
 * Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?
 * ✅. 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.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 06:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer: A good faith user will likely use more polite language and will display qualities that fall under WP:AGF whereas a troll will be more likely to personally insult the person who reverted their edit, or repeatedly make the same edit, or engage in edit warring without giving any edit summaries. The troll will also avoid going to the talk page to discuss the matter, preferring to edit war, or, upon being blocked, will resort to other, block evasion tactics such as sockpuppetry or IP hopping.
 * How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?
 * 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.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 06:04, 1 August 2021 (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 Responding to threats of harm carefully and respond to the questions below.

Answer: It depends on the nature of the threat. If you are in immediate danger, local emergency services should be contacted immediately. If there is a threat of physical violence (including self harm), email emergency@wikimedia.org as soon as an emergency situation is encountered, and provide the necessary diffs, name of the page, etc. An administrator should then be contacted privately, in some low visibility method.
 * Who should you contact when you encounter a threat of harm on Wikipedia? What details should you include in your message?
 * ✅. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 06:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer: All threats should be taken seriously. Most threats may be empty, but the determination of which threats are empty and which ones are not is decided by Foundation staff. The same procedure listed above should be followed.
 * 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)?
 * ✅. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 06:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Sock pupperty
Please read Sock puppetry and answer the question below
 * What forms socks puppetry usually takes? and where to report it?

Answer: Sock puppets can take many forms, including but not limited to:


 * 1) Anonymous IPs (to make disruptive, or inappropriate edits)
 * 2) Old, previous unused accounts ("sleepers")
 * 3) Using another person's account

If dealing with a suspected sockpuppet, a report should be filed to Sockpuppet investigations for potential action against the suspected sockpuppet.
 * ✅ other forms of SOCK as follow
 * 1. Creating an addidional unauthorised account or multiple accounts, usualy for block evading or vote stuffing or trying to avaoid 3 Revert Rule. The main account is the "Puppet Master" the others are the "Sock(s)"
 * 2. The persuasion of others to back your position in a discussion - "Meatpuppetry"
 * Do note when we report a SP, we need to include evident (hist diffs) and justifications.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>)

---


 * Hi, see Assignment 5 above.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 00:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have completed assignment 5, and have completed the two test edits you asked me to find. I apologize for the delay in finishing. I've been rather busy with a sudden and urgent move due to the COVID situation in India. I apologize for any inconvenience. Kalariwarrior (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, Reviewed and see above comments. Understand the impact covid has on every countries and individuals for we are in lockdown here. If you need a break for whatever reasons in the future, pls send me a message and informed me. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 06:04, 1 August 2021 (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: Semi-protection should be applied to pages that are frequently vandalized by users, especially anonymous IPs. Other behaviors that warrant semi-protection include edit warring, unexplained edits, or other forms of disruptive editing. Typically used on high visibility profiles that are frequently edited.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  09:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Answer: Usually in articles that are infrequently edited by anonymous IPs or new users, many of which vandalize, disruptively edit, edit war, or are in violation of WP:BLP.
 * . The key is low volume vandalism but persistence over a period of time (a few days to a few weeks).<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  09:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

3. In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * Answer: Full protection is usually applied in pages that are constantly vandalized by extended confirmed accounts, or critical templates/modules. While full protection is rare compared to other types of protection, it seems to be used when extended confirmed protection is not sufficient.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  09:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Answer: Creation protection is used on pages that have been deleted, but are repeatedly recreated, sometimes through other means such as WP:SOCK.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  09:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Answer: Only in cases of severe vandalism be it on an article, or on a user talk page. Semi-protection is the only form of protection applied to talk pages, but is typically applied on a temporary basis.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  09:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

6. Correctly request the protection of three pages (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.


 * Answer i: Request for pending changes protection can be found here.
 * - It was declined - see here.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  09:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Answer again:


 * Answer ii: Request for semi-protection can be found here.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  09:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Answer iii: Request for pending changes protection can be found here.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  09:11, 17 November 2021 (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: Normally, page deletion is done by administrators after a deletion discussion. Speedy deletion however, occurs in order to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages that have no practical chance of surviving discussion (see WP:SNOW).
 * pls briefly go through each CSD criteria and write in your own words.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  09:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Answer again:

There are several circumstances that indicate a speedy deletion. They can be broadly divided into 7 categories. General, Articles, Redirects, Files, Categories, User pages, and Portals. General is the broadest category, and can be divided into 14 subcategories, which are labelled G1 to G14. G1 is for patent nonsense, and applies to pages that are just nonsensical text. These pages are usually designed without a purpose, and convey nothing meaningful.

G2 is for test pages. These pages are created for the sole purpose of test editing and experimenting with Wikipedia tools and functions. These articles are usually subpages of the Wikipedia Sandbox, but does not apply to the Sandbox, or in other places such as user pages.

G3 is for vandalism/hoax pages. Pages that are created in order to support blatant hoaxes, or push obvious misinformation. This category also applies to redirects created as a result of page move vandalism. Its worth nothing that this category does not apply to noteable hoaxes that describe a popular or well documented hoax.

G4 is recreation of a page that was deleted after a deletion discussion. Usually this applies to pages that are direct copies of deleted pages, or pages that share the same title as deleted pages. Pages that do not share a significant similarity to a deleted page are excluded from this category.

G5 covers pages created by users who have been blocked or banned from in violation of their block or ban. These pages must be created by the user, and have no significant editing history by other users. The page must have been created by the blocked or banned user AFTER their block or ban has gone into effect. Anything they created before this point is excluded from this category. Usually pages that fall into this category are created via sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.

G6 covers technical deletions. This category is used for uncontroversial maintenance. Pages that fall under this category are usually redirects, pages that interfere with page moves, orphaned templates, etc.

G7 is deletion of a page by the page's author. An author of a page may request its deletion, if the page in question only has significant content that was placed by the author themselves. This can be done by placing the template themselves, or by simply blanking their own page, which is also seen as a deletion request.

G8 covers pages dependent on a deleted page, or non-existent page, such as talk pages that are not attached to an article, redirects to nonexistent or deleted articles, etc. Almost any page that is not actively useful to Wikipedia can fall into this category, excluding documented discussions, user talk pages, archives, etc.

G9 is reserved for office actions. This category is used by the Wikipedia Foundation Office, which reserves the right to speedily delete a page. Pages that are deleted via this category cannot be reversed unless permission from the Wikipedia Foundation is obtained.

G10 is the category used for ages that harass, threaten, or intimidate a person can fall into this category. These pages are known as "attack pages." This category applies to pages of that nature to which no neutral version is available to revert to.

G11 is applied to pages that are created for the sole purpose of promotion, in such a way that it needs to be rewritten entirely in order to serve as a suitable article for Wikipedia. If the subject of the article is notable, and the text can be made neutral, then this is preferred to outright deletion.

G12 applies to pages which contain copyrighted material with no assertation of public domain, fair use or a compatible free license, in such a way that there is no non-infringing content that is safe to retain. WP:CV contains information on copyright violations in regards to articles and their content.

G13 is used in abandoned drafts or article creation submissions. If any page in the draft namespace, userspace (that has a AFC submission or no content except the article wizard placeholder text) that is not edited by a user (excluding bots) in 6 months This category does not apply to redirects, and decisions for deletion can be reversed by requesting for undeletion at WP:REFUND/G13.

G14 is used for disambiguation pages (pages that have titles which end with "disambiguation") that only disambiguate one page. This also applies to disambiguation pages that do not disambiguate to any pages, as well as redirects that ends with "disambiguation" that does not redirect to a disambiguation page.

Articles is the second major category, and applies only to pages in the article namespace, they do not apply to redirects. They are divided into A1 to A11.

A1 is used for articles that have no context. Articles that lack context in reference to the subject of the article fall into this category. The articles that fall into this category are usually very short. This category does not apply to articles that were created very recently (eg. a few minutes ago).

A2 is applicable to any article written in a language that is not English, that have more or less the same content as an article on another Wikipedia project. If the article is not exactly the same in terms of content, the page can be listed for review and possible translation into English.

A3 is used for articles with no content of their own. These articles are usually only composed of external links, see also sections, etc. Many of them also have chat-style comments, images, etc.

A5 is used for Transwikied articles. The only content on articles that fall into this category are a dictionary definition of the subject of the article that has already been transwikied via the Wiktionary, a primary source that has already been transwikied, or an article that has already undergone a deletion discussion that resulted in moving it to another wiki, after it has been moved.

A7 is used for articles about anything that does not give any indication of the significance of the subject. WP:CCS gives more information on what makes a subject significant enough to warrant an article.

A9 is used specifically for musical recordings in which none of the artists has an article of their own, and does not indicate why the recording is important. Both of these conditions must be met for this criteria to be used.

A10 applies to newly created articles that are just duplicates of an already existing English Wikipedia article. These articles are duplicates, and do not provide more information or expand upon the subject matter. These articles are not suitable for redirection either. This criteria does not apply to pages that are mergeable.

A11 is used for pages whose subject was clearly invented by the author of the article, or someone the author personally knows. There is no indication of why the subject is important or significant.

Redirects are the third broad category for deletion criteria. They apply to redirects within any given namespace, with a few exceptions. R2 applies to redirects from the main namepsace to any other namespace with the exceptions of Category, Template, Wikipeida:Help pages, Portals, or broken redirects that would fall into this criteria if fixed.

R3 is applicable to recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, in case of smaller misspellings, these can be useful as they can provide redirects in other languages besides English. Redirects that are created as a result of a page move do not fall into this criteria.

R4 is used for redirects in the File:namespace that shares the same name as a file or redirect within Wikipedia Commons, as long as the redirect has no file links on Wikipedia.

Files are the next broad deletion criteria. These codes only apply to individual files, images or other forms of media.

F1 is for files that are deemed to be "Redundant." Files in this criteria are usually unused duplicates of files, low resolution images (or copies of said images). This criteria does not include images in Wikimedia Commons.

F2 is used for files that are corrupt, missing or empty.

F3 applies to files that are are flagged as "for non-commercial use only," or other restricted use categories. They may be deleted with the exception of files that comply with limited standards for use.

F4 applies to files that lack sufficient licensing information to verify their copyright. This criteria only applies to files that are flagged as such for at least 7 days.

F5

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: CSD Promo - Diff is here
 * pls provide the hist diff where the CSD notification placed by you (if you used Twinkle, the notificataion is placed automatically by the system) on the creator talk page.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  09:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Answer ii: CSD Copyvio - Diff is here
 * - see here for explanation.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  09:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Answer again:


 * Answer iii: CSD Promo - Diff is here


 * - see explanation here. It is a sub class article but the content is not promotional. Short article does not mean it is a promotional piece. The article merely stated the where the radio station is located and aired on which frequency.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>   talk  09:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Answer again:


 * Answer iv: CSD Promo - Diff is here
 * pls provide the hist diff where the CSD notification placed by you (if you used Twinkle, the notificataion is placed automatically by the system) on the creator talk page.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  09:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , See Assignment 6 above. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 06:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been slowly working on the assignment, but due to final exams and internet problems, I've been very busy. Ive also been inadvertently blocked from editing due to a CheckUser block from Materialscientist affecting the underlying IP my account often edits from. I'm trying to resolve the issue, but I haven't received any proper responses from anyone yet.
 * I did have a question though. Regarding the page deletion process, is there any place where we can review new pages that are being made? I'm not sure how to catch the new pages being made. Hope you're doing well. Kalariwarrior (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * , Thank you for informing. For new pages, go her-1. For CSD 11 and CSD 12 you can find the article in both "new page patrol" and "article for creation (draft pages) but other CSDs you find them in new page patrol section. As for you block - the system did not register the block - see here-2 or here-3, Wait for Materialscientist reply your message. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  08:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the help. I'll look at it later today. As for my block, no one has responded to my email or pings, yet for some reason, I am randomly able to edit again. I'm not entirely sure what's going on, I'll just leave it alone and keep editing until someone responds. I'll ping you again once this assignment is complete. Kalariwarrior (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , You might want to send a message to the admin involved in "their" talk page. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  19:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Assignment has been completed. Please let me know if there's anything I need to correct. Thanks! Kalariwarrior (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , pls see the comments above and once you have provide the info /answers, then ping me.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  09:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)