User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/RFZYNSPY

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/RFZYNSPY.

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 twinkle enabled.

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

Answer: A vandalism edit carries intention of harm. That might be harm to readers, harm to the subject of a BLP, or harm to Wikipedia's infrastructure. A good faith edit is an edit that, while it may also harm those entities, doesn't have the intention of harm. These are edits that may be accidents, tests, or misguided uses of constructive editing. If vandalism edits and good faith edits are strictly defined above, then the grey area between them must also belong to good faith edits. This is because of the Wikipedia principle to always assume good faith.
 * Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
 * ✅. Cassiopeia  talk  09:33, 1 September 2021 (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): This edit seems like an anecdote that may very well be true, but there are no citations to support the claim. Therefore the edit is unhelpful but not necessarily malicious.
 * ✅. Cassiopeia  talk  09:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

(2): This is clearly a test edit, with a user writing a small bit of unhelpful text to see if they can edit the page. The edit is unhelpful but clearly not intentionally malicious.
 * ✅. Cassiopeia  talk  09:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

(3): This edit adds unhelpful information relating to an internet meme, so at first glance the edit may seem vandalism. However, the edit is made to a disambiguation page for the name of the internet meme. Therefore, the edit is not vandalism and is rather a misplaced explanation of an internet phrase.
 * ✅. Cassiopeia  talk  09:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Vandalism

Answer:

(1) : This is an edit that is entirely opinion and disparaging of a sports conference. Its only purpose is to help the editor persuade readers to share his or her opinion.
 * ✅. Cassiopeia  talk  09:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

(2): This edit adds strong opinion disparaging a particular team of rugby, even going to far as to claim that the editor's opinion is shared among most NRL fans. These claims are all provided without support, making the edit's sole purpose to paint in a bad light a rugby team which the editor dislikes.
 * ✅. Cassiopeia  talk  09:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

(3): This is an edit that provides an uncited, subjective claim about the article's subject which broke BLP by disparaging the title subject without providing evidence for the editor's claim(/opinion)
 * ✅. Cassiopeia  talk  09:33, 1 September 2021 (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.
 * (4) 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 provide your justification/reasons/analysis which supported by the guidelines to all your answers.
 * (6) Pls note that the motto of CUVA is Civility – Maturity – Responsibility.
 * (7) When you have done with the assignment, pls ping me. If you have any question while working on assignment, pls let me know. Cassiopeia  talk  04:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , pinging you to let you know I've finished with this assignment.


 * pls read read #5 on my first message to you and provide the your reasons. Ping me when you have finished.Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes ..<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  05:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I apologize for not following directions. I was up very late last night when I was getting started with the assignment. I think I've added proper support for my decisions on the assignment. Thanks,  RFZYN SPY  talk 01:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Well-done. pls let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  09:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm ready to move on to the next assignment.

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: To make sure that users who make vandalism edits are aware of the rules that exist on Wikipedia regarding vandalism so as to encourage better behavior. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt and (if the edits are non-severe) multiple chances to correct their behavior. A lot of editors who make vandalism edits may not realize how their edits harm the project, so it is necessary for them to be informed of policy and consequences.
 * Vandalism is vandalism. We go back to Assignment 1 here - vandalism editors have the "intent" to harm Wikipedia and they know that. The purpose to warn the editors 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. We can also add a personal message on the editors talk page if the warning templates do not specify enough of the edit made.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  06:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


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


 * Answer: In scenarios where multiple warnings would be guaranteed ineffective in promoting better behavior in articles. An editor who has proven that they are editing with **only** malicious intent should be given only one warning. For example, an extreme violation of BLP where an edit is made writing many slanderous, unsupported claims indicates that the editor went on Wikipedia with the sole intent of changing that page to reflect their opinion and misguide readers. Especially if many such vandalism edits were made in a short period of time (so that no warnings could be issued between edits). In this scenario, where the vandalism is both severe and clearly representative of malice, a 4im warning would likely be appropriate.
 * ✅. 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:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>   talk  06:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


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


 * Answer: Yes. The templates should be substituted so that any future changes in the template will have no effect on the actual wikitext that appears on a user's talkpage. This is important for future-proofing because it guarantees that the intent of the original warning is preserved.
 * ✅. We always substitute the warning templates.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  06:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * (4) What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?


 * Answer: Use Twinkle to open an ARV request on the account/IP. As a courtesy, a template can be substituted to the talk editor's page letting them know that they are the subject of an ARV request.
 * WP:ARV is not the right venue but WP:AIV (not sure if you have type incorrectly). When reporting to AIV, pls indicated the reasons/hist diffs.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  06:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This was a typo. I meant to say that an AIV request should be opened.  RFZYN SPY  talk 18:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for informing.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  20:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * (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.

The vandalism level 2 notice is an extremely common template for first-time warnings of vandalism. It carries no assumption of intent and simply informs a user of Wikipedia's rules.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  06:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Answer ii: Information.svg Hello, I'm RFZYNSPY. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

The test edit level 1 notice is a very friendly introduction to Wikipedia spaces for new users. It lets the editor know that they have other options for testing editing, such as their sandbox. It assumes good faith because, like most new Wikipedia editors, that editor just wants to experiment with the process and (hopefully) get better at it.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  06:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Answer iii: Information.svg Hello, Cassiopeia/CVUA. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

This is a single-level notice for accounts that are in suspected violation of COI. Once this template is used, a COI investigation should follow along with a courtesy notification to the editor's talk page.
 * pls read the question again - 3 different type of warning in three different level. You provided 2 level one warnings.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  06:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought single-issue templates don't have specific levels, so I thought they were unique enough to include here. But if that's not the case, then I will add the template . This template is useful as a final warning to a vandal that their edits must be sourced to be considered constructive. After this final warning is given, any further vandalism by the user should be grounds for an AIV request.  RFZYN SPY  talk 18:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop hand nuvola.svg You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia.  RFZYN SPY  talk 18:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  20:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

-

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

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

Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  20:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , finished with assignment 2.  RFZYN SPY  talk 04:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * See comments above and let me know if you have any questions.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  06:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I addressed your comments. I made a typo (see AIV above) and misunderstood that single-issue warning templates are considered level 1. I understand what mistakes I made and hopefully fixed them.  RFZYN SPY  talk 18:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for informing. See comment above. The next assignment is the hardest assignment in the program. Pls note that if you are not sure about the edits then pls do nothing and let the more experience counter vandalism editors or editors who know the subject to action. Do check the editor's history log and talk pate (check their user talk page history log to see if they have deleted some of the messages) to see the pattern and behavior of the editor should certain edits they made which you are not sure they are vandalism or not. Let me know if you have further questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  20:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm ready for the next assignment.  RFZYN SPY  talk 22:22, 3 September 2021 (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. See assignment 3 above and do note this is the hardest assignment in this program, so do that your time.
 * (1) If Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it.
 * (2) Pls provide article name, hist diffs, editor talk page where you place the warning message, reports hist diffs and any links that is applicable.
 * (3) Pls provide the reasons/justification/explanate of your answers.
 * (4) For "You choice" question - Pls indicate what type of edit you are providing - example change "Your Choice" to "Delete" / "Spam" /etc. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  00:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm having some trouble deciding which templates to use sometimes. A lot of them seemingly overlap. How do you decide the difference between similar templates like the "test edit" and "spam" templates? Or the "adding unsourced content" and "deliberate factual errors" templates?  RFZYN SPY  talk 02:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the questions above and to ask questions for such would help you to understands the topics better. See Spam, 7.20 Spam external linking and WP:Test edit . Once you have read them, explain to me what defines Spam and test edit in the communication section. Then I will explain to you the differences between spam, test edit, unsourced,  and deliberate factual errors and when and how to choose which templates in response to the edits made by editors.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>   talk ]] 03:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , it seems that WP:Spam always carries the intention of promoting some entity or attracting undue attention by manipulating search results. Like how a company might spam an email inbox with advertisements to get their name out there. I think I was misconstruing spam as being examples of character spam or link spam (for example, smashing a keyboard to produce aqwuhiauwtawqgeu). Now I know that spam includes advertisements, promotions, large violations of WP:NPOV, and search engine manipulation. Test editing is still a little bit unclear to me, because I would have to know whether the vandal made that edit on purpose or not. Sometimes the line between that is blurry. But in most cases, test edits will be small changes that, unlike spam, don't promote a business or manipulate a POV.  RFZYN SPY  talk 03:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) Spam /Advertising - advertising, promotion and external links promotions. The different this two (2 different warning templates - see WP:WARN) is that spam usually is external promotional links such as url for live stream sport event for a fee, url for sales, url for advertising. We use Advertising/Promotion template when the content is about promoting/advertising the subject/companies or the products such as the "XXX company has an extremely good ear buds with only a fiction of the price compares to other leading companies".
 * (2) NPOV - NPOV is neutral point of view. This means when we write or change the content, we need to write the content in neutral point of view without adding any words (adverb or adjectives) to enhance/give positive (see WP:PUFFERY) or negative/downgrade the info supported by the source. In short, we mainly recording the info in a simple, factual manner. Example, instead of "the XXX team smashed YYY team or the zzz politician gave a powerful, eloquent, incomparable  speech that move the audience in extreme emotion on August 1, 2021 at the T-Mobile or aaa is a popular, beautiful actress who featured in 40 movies from 1980 to 2000, we simple just write xxx won the match with the score card of ??? vs ???; the zzz politician gave a speech on Augst 1, 2021 at the T-Mobile about bbb topics; the aaa actress featured in 40 movies from 1980 to 2000 and won the ??? award in 1990. If the readers want to know more they can always check the sources and read for themselves.
 * (3) Test edit - Test edits are first edit (or sometimes second edit) made by new editors with the purpose to if they "actually can make an edit in Wikipedia" (to test if they can make an edit in Wikipedia). Examples - the editors would add "Hi / hello / test / add an alphabet/character/number (sometimes they revert their own edit - we call this "self-revert test edit"). Sometimes we might not sure if the editor is actually trying to vandalize the page or it is their test edit especially they change a sport/game score or BoD, then it would be subject to (1) check the info is supported by source, (2) is the game has just finished and some editors do not agree to the result (such as in a combat source). If you are not sure leave the edit alone and let other editor who know about the subject to action.
 * (4) Unsourced - self explanatory - adding unsourced content.
 * (5) Check - When we are not sure about the edit, check the editor history log (especially if they have removed/delete their talk page messgaes) and their talk page, from there we could gauge the editors' past behavior and determine the ambiguity of the recent edits.
 * (6) Overlapping / which template to use - if we could use a few warning templates for the edit, then choose the one that is matches the most and if you not sure, then choose the most general (example - if you are not sure it is a vandalism edit or unsourced - choose unsourced). Again, if you not sure at all what to do with the edit then leave it alone and let other more experience counter vandalism editor or editors who know about the subject to action.)
 * (7) Note: (i) Disruptive and unsourced edits are not vandalism but continuing to edit in the same manner after receiving final warning, we would report the editor to AIV. (ii) If the templates do not convey the messages against the edit made, then send the warning message and then write a personal message to explain the reasons (guidelines links) to the editor in a friendly manner). (iii) Always remember not to revert more than 3 times within 24 hours in a same page if the edits are not considered vandalism for you will be blocked from editing and would not able to continue this program after 6 months from you unblocked date (very important not be blocked at all in your editing service in Wikipedia).
 * I believe I have answered all you questions, let me know if anything else I could help. stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  06:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You have absolutely answered all of my questions. Thank you for the very detailed answers! I now understand more clearly the differences between those templates. Also, what you said about choosing the more general template when deciding between two similar ones makes a lot of sense to me. I'm excited to continue filling out the table above!  RFZYN SPY  talk 16:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You have absolutely answered all of my questions. Thank you for the very detailed answers! I now understand more clearly the differences between those templates. Also, what you said about choosing the more general template when deciding between two similar ones makes a lot of sense to me. I'm excited to continue filling out the table above!  RFZYN SPY  talk 16:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Pls note: We go back to Assignment 1 here - If an editor intends to help Wikipedia, and the edit is considered disruptive, they are still considered a "good faith" editor especially the new editor does not aware their edits are disruptive. Vandalism is a "deliberate attempt" to harm Wikipedia. Editor might edit adds incorrect or unsourced information and this does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal; the key is their "intention". So you are not sure if the edit is considered vandalism even after checking the editor talk page and history log, then use the other warning templates instead of vandal template. When you have done with the assignment 2, pls ping me. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>   talk  02:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble finding a WP:MOS edit to revert. I've found that most MOS violations are simple errors made in good faith, and therefore not vandalism. Could you show me an example of a MOS vandalism diff that might fit the guidelines of this exercise?  RFZYN SPY  talk 01:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your question. Before I provide you with the answer, kindly revisit assignment 2 and let me know "what is the reason we warn editors" and do you considered "adding unsourced content" is a good or bad faith edit (vandalism)? I will explain to you further once I have received your reply. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  03:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * We warn editors to make them aware of Wikipedia policy and discourage future vandalism. As far as "adding unsourced content", it can be vandalism if the content is defamatory, outlandish, or contested. But "adding unsourced content" may also include edits where a reasonable claim is made but a reference was forgotten. Those edits are good faith. I'm still not sure how any of this relates to WP:MOS though...  RFZYN SPY  talk 04:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the above. The purpose of warning editor is to "educate" about Wikipedia guidelines and to "deter" them to edit in the same manner in the subsequent edits. If an unsourced content is added and the content is considered vandalism which the intent is to harm Wikipedia project then we place vandal template on editor's talk page, If the unsourced is not to harm Wikipedia project then it is considered good faith and we place an "unsourced" warning template on the editor's talk page. So it does not matter if the edit is good faith or bad faith, we would place warning templates on the editors' talk pages. Same with test edit, edit without edit summary, unsourced, incorrect MOS or Wikitext and etc are all good faith edits (not considered vandalism) but we still will place warning templates on the editor page. In short we do place waiting message in good and bad faith edits for purpose is to educate the editors and to deter same action in the future. when you are not sure if it is a vandalism edit then pls always ask yourself is the editor indented to harm Wikipedia with their edit? and check the editor's talk page and history log prior deciding and after do all the checking and you are still not 100% sure, then give other warning messages or leave the edit alone. . Do note; although unsourced and disruptive edits are considered not vandalism edits but if editor continues to edit in same manner after receiving the final warning, they can be reported and will subject to be blocked from editing. I believe I have answered your question. IF not, then let me know.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>   talk  04:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, so what you are saying is that warnings are also useful for good faith and non-vandalism edits. That makes sense to me now. I think my issue was with thinking the table I had to fill out was all "reverting vandalism", so I was confused as to why WP:MOS violations were vandalism. Now it makes more sense to me. Thanks for the answer! Hopefully I can find a MOS issue to correct soon so I can have the table completed.  RFZYN SPY  talk 04:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've finished filling out the table! What comes next?  RFZYN SPY  talk 02:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I was also wondering, when might it be appropriate for me to apply for rollback permissions? I really enjoy using Huggle but being limited to read-only tools is pretty constricting.  RFZYN SPY  talk 03:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Give me a day or two to review your answers. Best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  09:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * See comments above and pls complete additional 5 questions 16-20). Ping when you have answered them.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  09:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey there, I'm almost finished with the extra tables but I'm having a lot of difficulty coming across test edits. Do you know of a way I can find recent changes that are likely test edits? I use Wikiloop's Doublecheck most of the time but it's designed for vandalism edits, not test edits with much smaller size differences.  RFZYN SPY  talk 00:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You can go to WP:User creation log and look for the blue hightailed "contribution" (this means the users have edited since they have registered. Or you can go to WP:Recent changes to find IP editors.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  00:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I've finished my two WP:SPAM reversions and my two WP:TEST reversions.  RFZYN SPY  talk 02:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * See review above and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  00:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * All ready!  RFZYN SPY  talk 00:47, 5 October 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. Cheers. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  01:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I did the readings.  RFZYN SPY  talk 06:36, 5 October 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.


 * Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Answer: Recognition is a source of encouragement for vandals and trolls. If they see that their work is successful in making someone angry, stressed, or sad, they will feel empowered (positive feedback loop). So it's best to reserve showing any emotion and just quickly & quietly perform the job of cleaning up the vandalism. This is easy to do if you just follow policy.  RFZYN SPY  talk 04:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. 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:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  05:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


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

Answer: This requires measurement of the capabilities of the user. If the user is asking why I reverted an edit via my talk page, it's likely that they're competent enough in Wikipedia to see the bright red notification symbol on their screen that would tell them that they have a message, which contains a warning that they're performing vandalism. If, however, a user does something like revert my rollback with an edit summary "this isn't vandalism" or "please don't remove!!", then I will assume the bare minimum good faith and give an explanation in my next edit summary of why it's vandalism. Past that point, any further discussion is much more likely to be an act of trolling than an act of genuine confusion. At the end of the day, you can usually tell based on a combination of the edits (how severe the vandalism is) and the user's way of asking why it was reverted (whether or not it was made by someone who knows what they're doing).  RFZYN SPY  talk 04:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * . We would 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 no 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.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  05:54, 23 October 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.


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

Answer: A threat of physical harm is always assumed to be credible. I should immediately email emergency@wikimedia.org (via Special:EmailUser/Emergency). Included in my email should be diffs of the threat, context, users involved, screenshots (if applicable), and really anything else that might be of value to ensuring the safety of everyone involved. I should also include any written context of the threat, such as actions leading up to it or personal information shared like location, address, or county/state.

After the email is sent, I would use an IRC client to join #wikipedia-en-revdel and tag "@staff" and "@admin" to get immediate assistance. I'd include similar context to the email (This is something I've done in the past. I had to request a revision deletion for an edit summary that included personally identifiable information. This was the edit that caused confusion in my CVUA assignment, funnily enough!).  RFZYN SPY  talk 04:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

a. If it were a threat against you and fi you thought that you were in immediate danger you would firstly contact your own local police station
 * b. All threats (including the above) are to be notified by email to  or if email is enables in your user account simply click on Special:EmailUser/Emergency
 * c. Include in your email, the article or user page where the threat was made and a diff(s) of the edit(s) making the threat
 * d Then contact an admin with the same details avoiding using public Admin Boards such as WP:AIV
 * e Finally request oversight to have the threats supressed at Requests for oversight

<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  05:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


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

Answer: Report it anyway. I do not carry the burden of determining the credibility of a threat. That responsibility is for the team at emergency@wikimedia.org  RFZYN SPY  talk 04:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  05:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Sock pupperty
Please read Sock puppetry and answer the question below
 * What forms socks puppetry usually takes? and where to report it? and what should be included when reporting to Sock Pupperty?

Answer:

(i) Sock puppetry usually takes the forms of: Multiple accounts or multiple IP addresses. These accounts could be from the same person, a different person (family member), a different location (IP switching via VPN or dynamic router), or a variation of the sockmaster's username. Sockpuppetry does not include the legitimate uses of multiple accounts.  RFZYN SPY  talk 04:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * All forms of sock-puppetry are designed to deceive other users and take the form of:
 * a. Logging out deliberately and using other user IP to make a problematic edits.
 * b. Creating an additional unauthorized account or multiple accounts, usually for block evading or vote stuffing or trying to avoid 3 Revert Rule. The main account is the "Puppet Master" the others are the "Sock(s)"
 * c. The use of someone elses account (known as "Piggybacking")
 * d. Reviving an old disused "Sleeper" account
 * f. The persuasion of others to back your position in a discussion - "Meatpuppetry"
 * <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  05:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  05:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

(ii) Report Sock Puppetry to: Create a report at WP:SPI. If the edits are especially disruptive or time-sensitive, a private message to a checkuser might be helpful in getting the request processed.  RFZYN SPY  talk 04:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  05:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

(iii) What should be included when reporting the Sock Puppetry: Not any personally identifiable information. I would include the reasons I'm suspicious, all of the accounts I suspect, and diffs or other hard evidence supporting my claim. I'll also include a signature of course.  RFZYN SPY  talk 04:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  05:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

--


 * Hi, See assignment 5 above. I have noticed that you had been subject to personal attack on your talk page and I have report the IP editor - see here -1 and the editor has been blocked for two days - see here-2. To me it is a very mild block for in most cases, admin will issue an indef block (indefinite block).  Please do not be discourage with such ill will messages. Counter vandalism editors always subject to trolling, abuse, and receive all messages that are extremely unpleasant from the editors who we place warning messages on their talk page. I have received death threats, personal attacks, legal threats and all the degrading and adherent, detestable abusive languages that you can named from the sky. What we do  when the editor trolling is to keep clam and do not engage with them. If they ask a question, we reply in mechanical matter and continue to do so and if the editor still do not accept or being reasonable, then let them know you have no more to input and will stop the discussion. If they continue to personal attack, then report them to AIV. When the trolling get too intense or the editors get too emotional and unreasonable, then take a break, go to have a cup of coffee/listen to some music or just come back the next day to start edit or reply the editor. All in all, do not give the trolling editors the attention. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>   talk  00:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey ! I just finished up this assignment. And yes I was subject to a bit of an attack but I feel that I handled it well. I made sure to not incite further vandalism by arguing with the editor. I just kept my head down and kept working on countervandalism until a kind person reported the editor and reverted the edits on my page. I wasn't bothered by it... it actually seemed like a compliment to be hated by a vandal. But if I do get stressed, I'll try to make use of that strategy you shared with me. You offer some pretty good advice.  RFZYN SPY  talk 04:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , See above comments and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Sorry for taking a little longer than usual to review the assignment. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  05:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * , ready to move on now.  RFZYN SPY  talk 08:10, 24 October 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: In the event of repeated vandalism by enough users that blocking all the vandals is not feasible. It shouldn't be used preemptively, though RFZYN SPY  talk 08:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * . It is used when there is a large amount of vandalism from new or IP users, such as on articles that concern something recently in the media. Also prevents such users from edit warring, or using newly created sock puppets - see WP:SEMIGUIDE. If the vandalism edits are merely edited by a few editors then we could warn the editor and when report them to AIV; however, if the vandalism edits are made by many editors (especially IP editor) we will report to RPP along with warning the involved editors.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  01:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Answer: The same circumstances as semi-protection, but pending changes protection is used for articles which rarely receive non-vandalism edits.  RFZYN SPY  talk 08:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * . When the vandalism is persistent but low in volumn over a period of time (few days to few weeks).<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  01:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

3. In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * Answer: Pages that would cause massive disruption if vandalized. These include the main page and all of the templates transcluded onto it (cascade protection). It can also be used to halt an edit war with many participants.  RFZYN SPY  talk 08:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Fully protected is rare and only admins can edit the page.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  01:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Answer: When a page has been deleted by due process and community consensus and keeps being re-created under the same name.  RFZYN SPY  talk 08:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  01:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Answer: Talk page vandalism, vote manipulation via sockpuppetry, or consistent personal attacks might be reasons to semi-protect a talk page.  RFZYN SPY  talk 08:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  01:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Answer i: Request was accepted.  RFZYN SPY  talk 08:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , Pls provide recent (from Dec 2021) RPP protection request.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  01:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Answer again:


 * Answer ii: Request was accepted.  RFZYN SPY  talk 08:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , Pls provide recent (from Dec 2021) RPP protection request.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  01:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Answer again:

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: Articles that are not worthy of inclusion into an encyclopedia, with reasons ranging from nonsense to attack pages to copyright violations and plenty in between. `Speedy deletion in particular is when these reasons are blatant and uncontroversial, such as a direct copy-paste copyvio.  RFZYN SPY  talk
 * pls list down all the CSD criteria and briefly go through thte criteria in your own words.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  01:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Answer again:

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: Reginald Green, under A7


 * Answer ii: Prakash Bikalpa, under G11


 * Answer iii: Kashish Yoga School (India), under G11


 * Answer iv: User:Storethefilepls/sandbox, under G12


 * , See Assignment 6 above.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  01:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I finally finished this section. Apologies for taking so long.  RFZYN SPY  talk 20:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , Pls see comment and provide (1) new (from Dec 2021 onward) 2 RPP, (2) list all the CSD and go throught all the criteria briefly in your won words and (3) pls provide hist diff (as per the question requested); if the articles have been deleted, then provide the hist diff of the CSD message of the creaotr of the page (the message that automatically placed by the system if you use Twincle). If any of the CSD requested by you were more than 2 weeks old from today, then provide new ones. Ping me when you have done the above.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  01:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)