User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/UnnamedUser

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/UnnamedUser.

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 already have. AnUnnamedUser   (open talk page)  04:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: A good faith edit is intended to help Wikipedia's goal of being a free encyclopedia presenting the sum of human knowledge in all languages, whereas vandalism is intended to obstruct the goal. Any edit that improves the quality of an article should not be considered vandalism, so they can be ignored. By looking at the content of the edit, then examining the viewpoint of the editor: is it plausible that the editor would do this in good faith with a valid reason, or is it obvious that the edit was not good faith? Both Occam's and Hanlon's razors should be used. There are many general categories of unhelpful edits, both good-faith and vandalism, that can be told to be vandalism or not by a few general guidelines; but I cannot describe them all here.
 * Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.

1. This is just removing relevant information and adding information that is already stated elsewhere in the article, along with an apparent editing test that states "Hi."
 * Please find three examples, providing history diff and explanations, 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:
 * ✅. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

*NOTE: The key here is "intention". If an editor intends to help Wikipedia, and the edit is considered disruptive, they are still considered a "good faith" editor especially the new editor does not aware their edits are disruptive. Vandalism is a "deliberate attempt" to harm Wikipedia. Editor might edit adds incorrect or unsourced information and this does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal; they key is their "intention". CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

2. Synonyms, but the term "transsexual" is the one used in the study that is the source of the information.
 * ✅.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

3. "Fully subsidized meals" is not what Finnish education is notable for.
 * ✅. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Vandalism Answer:

1. See here-1 Obvious vandalism by introduction of deliberate factual errors, as no one is stupid enough to think that Yoda is the President of France.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 11:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

2. Another one here-2Calling Paul Ryan a weasel has nothing to do with improving the quality of the article.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 11:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

3. Here-3 Section blanking and saying that a user "improved" an article in the edit summary is something that no good-faith editor would do.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 11:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

- Good day. 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. See above the first assignment. Ping me here when you are done and ready for review.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 04:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi greetings. Just wonder you have finished the exercises and want me to review the assignment? <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 05:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , hello again. I have completed this assignment. Please let me know if the description of the difference between vandalism and good-faith edits should be expanded. AnUnnamedUser   (open talk page)  00:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi greetings. You can add "[" and "]" before and after the URL and it will autimatically provide "1", "2" - see "Good faith" section and etc of the link. If you want to provide text of for the link (to state whatever you want) then add a few spaces and type the text -  see "Vandalism Answer" section. You have done well for the assignment. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move to next assignment. Thank you.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 11:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings back, . I am ready to move on the next assignment. AnUnnamedUser   (open talk page)  21:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, Please see additional "NOTE" on Good faith Answer#1, and see assignment 2 below.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 08:21, 9 August 2019 (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: We warn users in order to inform them of Wikipedia policies and prevent future disruptive editing or vandalism by a polite request or the threat of a block. Other benefits to warning include offering constructive criticism of edits and explaining why we have reverted an edit more clearly.
 * ✅.very well. Right. the purpose is to "educate" the editors on constructive editing, especially those who are new to Wikipedia and to "deter" them of such actions with stronger warnings leads up to a block.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 01:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


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


 * Answer: A 4im warning would be appropriate only for egregious instances of vandalism, when it is obvious that bad faith is involved and the user in question shows no intent to stop. This could be used when a revision is particularly destructive or when an editor has persistently made disruptive edits.
 * ✅. Good. 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:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 01:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


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


 * Answer: It is probably a good idea to use a substitution in order to prevent changes to a template from changing the warning. The format is, although Twinkle could be used to make this quicker.
 * it is not "probably a good idea" but " always" use a substitution" to ensure that the message on the talk page will not change even if the template is changed.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 01:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * (4) What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * Answer: I should report that user to WP:AIV. Once again, Twinkle can be used. It is helpful to make a short comment about what this user has done and note the page being vandalized and the revision number that contains the vandalism.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 01:31, 15 August 2019 (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.

This is for the most egregious cases of advertising, such as when a user adds advertisement content to many pages or creates advertisement pages. An evidently advertisement-only account with no intention of stopping even after reverts (and previous warnings) should just be immediately reported to WP:AIV.
 * Answer i: Stop hand nuvola.svg This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 01:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Answer ii: [[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm AnUnnamedUser. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from a Wikipedia article. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

This should be used as a gentle reminder of Wikipedia's non-censorship policy when a good-faith editor removes content because it is "inappropriate."
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 01:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Answer iii: 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.

Most commonly this is used for warning users who have committed blatant vandalism in conjunction with reverting their edits if they have already received a level 1 warning.
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 01:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

- By "examples," do you mean that I should provide diff links to certain disruptive/vandalism edits? AnUnnamedUser  (open talk page)  03:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi  By examples means to put the subst template   . Example - Once you have place the subst template, it will show the message as below and that is want we need for the answer (not different level of warnings are needed for the answers).

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 help desk. Thanks.


 * Hi  hello good afternoon. I have seen you have answered all the questions; however, you have not informed me if you are ready for me to review the assignment 2. Please let me know. thank you.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 01:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am ready. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  01:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi  Well done and see my comment above. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready for the next assignment. Thank you.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 01:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am ready to move on. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  01:52, 15 August 2019 (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.

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

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

Make sure you keep in mind that some edits that seem like vandalism can be test edits. This happens when a new user is experimenting and makes accidental unconstructive edits. Generally, these should be treated with good faith, especially if it is their first time, and warned gently. The following templates are used for test edits:, 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. You need to apply the what you learn into practice for this assignment. Twinkle does not have all the templates and  if Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. You have not reach the requirements needed to use other tools (user right) yet so it might take a little time/effort to work on this assignment. Most participants find this assignment a little difficult and if you need help do let me know. When you have done with the assignment and wan tme to review them, pls ping me. Cheers.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, You need to provide the "subst" warning template info under "Your comment" column ((using  ) - see "Your comment" on "Example" (first one which I provide) for reference. Further information can be found at WP:WARN and WP:UWUL. Thank you.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 01:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have completed this assignment. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  21:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 23:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, will look at them later of the day after work. Thank you.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 01:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * well done. Note: for edit especially on sport win/loss stats, election numbers of that sort, we would leave the changes as they are unless you are familiar with the sport/sportmen stats and know where to find the sources and let other editors who follow the sport to deal with the edits. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move to next assignment.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 12:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am ready. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page).  23:06, 23 August 2019 (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:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I have finished reading the text. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  19:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reminder notice. AnUnnamedUser (insecure) (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

-

Dealing with difficult users
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: Recognizing trolls and vandals by putting the spotlight on them frequently results in them continuing their vandalism efforts. Trolls vandalize Wikipedia to extract negative reactions, and we are only helping them achieve their goals by recognizing them. Meanwhile, other motivations for vandalism are also spurred on by "feeding" the vandals. For example, users who vandalize Wikipedia for entertainment may find it all the more amusing to be recognized, and people who vandalize Wikipedia due to low self-esteem may find themselves "rewarded" with some attention for once.
 * Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?
 * ✅. 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:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 03:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer: The edit in question is a good starting point: an obvious bad-faith edit almost always signifies a troll. Behavior in the request for the revert is also to be looked at: personal insults, a negative tone, and clear violations of Wikipedia policies also point to a troll, whereas civil behavior is probably good-faith. When it is in doubt whether an edit is in bad faith, WP:AGF should be adhered to.
 * How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?
 * Violating Wikipedia policies might not be a troll, it depend on the nature of the edit made and what has been said by the editor. 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.

Answer: No, because the comment is directed to the argument and not the person.
 * A disagreement on content dispute - an editor states a message to you "That is is silly answer and your arguments have no basis." Does this constitute a personal attack and why?
 * ✅ good. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 03:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Sock puppetry is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies.

Answer: Sock puppetry's use is to pretend to be two different people at the same time. They may be broadly summarized in influencing community discussions and covering up vandalism. Suspected sock puppeting should be reported to WP:SPI.
 * What forms socks puppetry usually takes? and where to report it?
 * ✅. SOCK would take in various form such as (1). IP-edit - Logging out to make disruptive/vandalism/warring edits as an IP address (2) Creating New Account -to avoid detection or sanctions. (3) Piggybanking - using another editor's account to avoid detection. (3) Sleepers: Using/reviving own old, unused accounts and to portrait as different user. (4) Meatpuppetry - creating accounts for friends or colleagues by persuading them  to support one side of a dispute/edit warring/Article for Deletion discussion/etc. Evident need to be present when reporting to SPI.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 03:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

--


 * Hi, See assignment 5 above.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 00:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Are you ready for me to review the assignment above?<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 01:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Yes. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  02:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, See above comments.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 03:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Protection
Please read the protection policy.

1. In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected? Answer: A page should be semi-protected when it experiences repeated vandalism, edit warring, or other policy violations (e.g. NPOV, BLP) from IPs or new users when blocking them is not convenient.
 * ✅. High volume vandalism by multiple users (such as react to a breaking news) and usually in a short time frame.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

2. In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected? Answer: A page should be pending changes protected when it experiences persistent vandalism, BLP violations, or copyvios. This can be used instead of semi-protection when the contributions of new or IP users are wanted.
 * . The key is low column but persistence vandalism over a period of time (from a few days to weeks).

3. In what circumstances should a page be fully protected? Answer: A page should be fully protected when persistent vandalism, edit warring, or BLP violations are committed by autoconfirmed users, who bypass the semi-protection filter.
 * Full protection permits on user to edit the page except the administrators, which the lower semi protection can not be address the underlining issues such as large scale edit warring, content disputes or the page is persistently vandalized by user who bypass/game the system. Full protection is rare and usually is temporary.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

4. In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")? Answer: A page should be salted when bad articles under its name have been deleted but persistently recreated.
 * ✅ good.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Answer: A talk page should be semi-protected in severe instances of IP or new users vandalizing them.

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

Answer (pending): request diff, protection diff.
 * ✅. Good.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 00:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer (semi or full): this.
 * ✅ good.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.

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

Answer: Administrators should speedily delete a page when it blatantly violates Wikipedia policies. Broadly summarized, some criteria are:
 * Is not part of the encyclopedia and unneeded. (e.g. blank pages)
 * Is intended to obstruct Wikipedia's mission. (aka vandalism)
 * Is false.
 * Is not notable.
 * NPOV violations and advertising.
 * Violates copyright.
 * We dont CSD NPOV unless it is NPOV fall under promoting /advertising the subject. Not notable is a board claimed - we CSD article if the article notability fall under A7, A9. Pls note CSD is done for obvious cases and they will be deleted within a few hours to 24 hours after the nominated if the criteria is met, if not we would nominated the page for proposed for deletion (PROD) or article for deletion (AfD).

2. Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons - they can be for any of the criteria) and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below.

Answer: Twin Coast Metrology here: A7 corp. Additional evidence at this
 * ✅ well-done.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Second tag: Scuola Metafisica as R2. See [this].
 * ✅ the page can be CSD G14.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * , See Assignment 6 above.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 03:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , No sure you received the above assignment which I have sent out about 10 days ago.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 16:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I will hop on NPP and RCP to get the practice done soon. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  00:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , OK, thank you for informing.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, are you ready to resume the program? you have only a few more assignment to go to finish the course and I encourage you to do so. Let me know and when you ready for me to ready Assignment 6, then ping me. Cheers.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 04:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it'll be one of my top priorities from now on. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  17:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Good to know.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 17:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Having trouble with finding a page to request pending changes protection on, though I've filled out all the remaining assignments. Recent changes patrolling is giving me no luck, and I don't want to haunt the dispute resolution noticeboards to find a page to request page protection for due to edit wars. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 20:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Greetings. Since you have more than 2.6K edits in the mainspace - see  HERE, you can download STiki, one of the vandalism tools, and you would find recent edits much easier.  I use Huggle as I find it is a much better tools for counter vandalism but you need a rollback user right which you can apply when you have finished the program.  I have reviewed the assignment except 6.1 Protection Q6. Please ping when you have finished the question and let me know if you need further clarification between the different between  semi, pending and full protection.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

--

Usernames
Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol the User creation log to check for new users with inappropriate usernames. There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed: Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particluar attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.
 * Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, usernames that impersonate other people, or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
 * Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.
 * Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
 * Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.
 * Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).

Answer: I would leave it for the moment. It is fine for the moment until COI issues relating to "D Johnson" arise; if COI issues are found, a COI user warning would be placed on the user's talk page. COI issues that involve blatant advertising are a rationale for further scrutiny and warnings; persistent advertising after warnings can be reported to WP:AIV.
 * DJohnson
 * . "To leave the it for the moment" - yes correct as the user name has not violated the username policy. However, in what page "if COI issues are found"?<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: This username violates the username policy by implying shared use in an organization. It might also suggest a COI. I judge that it is not unambiguously a promotional name because I have found no such organization with exactly the same name. The same protocol should be followed as with my answer for DJohnson.
 * LMedicalCentre
 * ✅. Use of organization name is a violation of username policy. a COI edit will only be recognized if the editor edits on the page of LMedicalCentre if there is no such page in Wikipeda. Do state the action would be taken in each answer instead of referring to the other answer you have previously stated.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: This is an offensive username, as it contains a misspelling of an explicit message including two expletives, possibly to evade username filters. It should be reported to Usernames for administrator attention.
 * Fuqudik
 * ✅. Right it is offensive username same as User talk:Liqed Diq and User talk:Ygsucksikon7forever.02:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: Because it implies shared use, it is not allowed. Staff refers to multiple people at once in a group. It also violates the shared username policy by being the name of a post in an organization that is liable to change over time; the people who are the staff of "Cole" are likely to change. I would try to talk to the user about his problematic username and suggest for a new username to be created. (If I find COI editing, follow the instructions at DJohnson.)
 * ColesStaff
 * ✅. You should typically wait until a user begins editing before reporting to WP:UAA, as the user's edits will clarify their intention..<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: This is a misleading username because it is identical to the code for a talk page signature in Wikitext. In spite of whether it is meant to be disruptive or not, it will be disruptive anyway because other editors will be confused by talk page signatures. If this user is using his username to confuse other editors intentionally on talk pages due to the signature function, he should be reported to Usernames for administrator attention. Otherwise, I would inform him that his username violates the username policy and request that he change his username. Due to the potential for this username to be disruptive, I would go to WP:RFCN if the user refuses to change his name.
 * ✅. It is disallowed in the Wikipedia system so you would not encounter it.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: This is a misleading username since it is the username of a registered user that implies that it is an IP. In spite of whether it is meant to be disruptive or not, it will be disruptive anyway because other editors will assume that it is an IP while it is actually a registered user. If this user is using his username to confuse other editors intentionally due to the lack of distinction between an IP, he should be reported to Usernames for administrator attention. Otherwise, I should inform him that his username violates the username policy and request that he change his username. Due to the potential for this username to be disruptive, I would go to WP:RFCN if the user refuses to change his name.
 * 172.295.64.27
 * ✅. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 00:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: This is a disruptive username since it insults Justin Bieber or someone else with the name "Bieber." Because it is offensive and defamatory, it should be reported to WP:UAA to be immediately blocked.
 * Bieberisgay
 * ✅.02:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

---


 * , See Assignment 7 above.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * , Have you finished Assignment 7? Please let me know so I may review it. Thank you.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 00:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Not yet, still reviewing. Also have real-life matters keeping me semi-inactive. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  03:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * , Ok, I asked because you have answered all the questions above. ping when you are ready for a review. You have a only a few assignment to go prior the final exam. Keep it up. cheers.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 05:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Not ping-worthy, but I would like to inform you that I have slightly changed my username. No need to create a redirect to this page from my new one or to move this page. From UnnamedUser (open talk page)  03:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for informing and kindly complete the assignment for review, you have only 2 more to go (one is monitoring period of 5 day) prior final exam. thank you.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 03:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I saw you edited / changed your answer, just wonder have you finished the assignment and want the assignment to be reviewed? pls inform.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I've finished my username section assignment. I still haven't found a page to request pending changes protection for even though I've returned to actively patrolling recent changes after diversions to my old content editing interests. – UnnamedUser (open talk page) 01:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , See the comment above and let me know if you have any question. As for the page protection, when you find one then pls report it and pls provide hist diff as we cant proceed to final exam prior this action is done. You would download WP:STiki, one of the counter vandalism tool, for you could find such incident more easy. If you have not question or this assignment and would like to proceed to next assignment then kindly let me know.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I have finished the pending changes assignment and am ready to proceed to the assignment after usernames. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnnamedUser (talk • contribs) 11:25, December 3, 2019 (UTC)


 * , Thank you and reviewed.00:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

-

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

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

Scenario 1
You encounter an IP vandalising Justin Bieber by adding in statements that he is gay. Answer: This is vandalism. It is intentionally trying to disrupt Wikipedia by disparaging a person in a non-encyclopedic manner.
 * Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: WP:VANDAL, WP:BLP, WP:V.
 * Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: I would choose uw-defamatory2. The uw-vandalism series could apply, but it is too generic when there are more specific templates to use. Level 1 assumes good faith while the edits are vandalism. The "cease and desist" of level 3 is too harsh.
 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?
 * ✅. Or uw-vandal.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: No. 3RR does not apply to reverting blatant vandalism.
 * The user has now added offensive words to the article 3 times. You have reverted three times already, can you be blocked for violating the three revert rule in this case?
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: IPvandal because it is more specific. It includes more information than the regular template, such as a WHOIS link and a link to investigate the IP range.
 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: The ARV Twinkle option would be "vandalism after final warning." A good additional explanation would be "repeated addition of offensive content that insults the subject of the article."
 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
 * ✅. Good.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Scenario 2
You see a new account called "Hi999" that has added random letters to one article. Answer: The intent of the user cannot be discerned as either vandalism or a good-faith edit by the actual content change alone. It can either be a vandal (trying to obstruct Wikipedia's goal by inserting non-encyclopedic text) or a good-faith editor (making typical test edits in an article not knowing that he should not). Because his intentions are unclear, the actions we do that relate to this user should assume good faith until the greater likelihood that the actions are vandalism is established. The edits would be considered good-faith editing tests unless the following criteria apply:
 * Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?
 * The user continues to do these types of edits even after a revert and warning.
 * Elsewhere, the user has engaged in blatant vandalism or otherwise egregiously disruptive behavior.
 * The edit summary appears to be intentionally misleading.
 * ✅ Also check how many edits the user has made. If this is their first edit, that would considered test edit.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: uw-test1 is the best option to respond to these test edits. It assumes good faith: it is gentle, directs the user to the sandbox, and does not mention "vandalism" or accuse him of acting in bad faith. uw-vandalism1 is more appropriate if the edit summary appears to be intentionally misleading.
 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?
 * ✅. good.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: If Green is used, an edit summary like "Remove test edits" should accompany the revert to avoid confusion from users who question why the edits are called good-faith without an explanation; this is the best option, providing the best explanation. Red is a worse alternative, although it save time because no edit summary is requested.
 * Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?
 * ✅. Good<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: Assuming that it's blatant vandalism, the user has made no contributions besides vandalism, and the user's been warned three times, not twice – yes, he is liable to be blocked as a vandalism-only account. If any of these three criteria are not fulfilled, it is uncertain whether this is a vandalism-only account, so a final level 4 warning is the best option.
 * The user now has a level 3 warning on their talk page. They make a vandal edit, would it be appropriate to report this user to AIV? Why or why not?
 * ✅. It would be best to report to AIV after the 4th warning unless the user is editing rapidly, currently, and/or egregiously making vandalism edit.

Answer: It depends on an overall view of his contributions. If all of his contributions are likely to be vandalism beyond tests, he can be blocked as a vandalism-only account. If he makes a constructive edit in the midst of his vandalism, he is not a vandalism-only account and should not be blocked indefinitely. Instead, passing a level 4 warning is the signal for him to be blocked, after which he will be blocked temporarily.
 * If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?
 * ✅. Vandalism-only accounts are typically blocked indefinitely

Answer: The latter. Since the user is not an IP, the extra features of the former like WHOIS and /64 range are irrelevant.
 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: Vandalism-only account if all edits are evidently vandalism; if the initial edits appear to be tests, I would point out that there is obvious vandalism down the line. Vandalism past level 4 warning is the correct option if reporting because he continues to vandalize after a level 4 warning. Both can be used if both criteria are fulfilled.
 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Scenario 3
You see a new account called "LaptopsInc" which has created a new page called "Laptops Inc" (which only contains the words "Laptops Inc" and a few lines of text copied from the company's website). The user also added "www.laptopsinc.com" on the Laptop article. You research Laptops Inc on Google and find that is a small company. Answer: Yes; rollback (Blue) is the best option. An edit summary should be used because it is not obvious vandalism; an example would be "Remove promotional external link spam."
 * Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option would you use?
 * . Adding Use rollback-vandal or the blue rollback with the edit summary "Spam link".

Answer: If I only knew about that one edit, I would use uw-advert2. Its type, "advert," reflects that the probably motive for this user's actions is advertising. I would choose level 2 over level 1 because the username suggests that this is a COI editor who is here to promote the company and not a misguided person. If I knew about the new page, warning would be unnecessary since the user will be blocked with an explanation that promotional edits are not allowed.
 * If you do revert which warning template would you use?
 * ✅. Or uw-spam1.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: These are the most likely criteria:
 * Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?
 * G11 if the text from the company is of promotional nature, which is more often than not
 * G12 if the material is copyrighted, which is also more likely than not, and the editor has not stated that he has permission to use the material
 * A7 if there is nothing in the article that would meet the low bar to state why the company is notable
 * A10 if there already is an article on the topic or a subsection of an article on the topic, and there are no details in the new article that are not already in the old article
 * ✅ good.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: No, because it's unnecessary. The promotional username and promotional edits will result in a block that will be accompanied with a promotional username explanation.
 * Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?
 * ✅ Using Twinkle, If you have tagged CSDs and then it will also automatically notify page creators. If it does not

work for some reason, then place Page Name on the user talk page.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: Yes. It is a promotional username that represents the name of a company or other organization. Laptops Inc exists: see Newegg, Amazon.
 * Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?
 * ✅ Report to UAA as Promotional names.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

--

, See Assignment 8 above. Cheers.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 00:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I have finished the assignment and am ready for it to be checked. UnnamedUser (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * . See above comment.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

-

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

Answer: Rollback may be used when:
 * Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.
 * The reason to revert is obvious, such as obvious vandalism
 * To revert edits that you have control over; that is, your own user pages and your own edits
 * To revert the edits of blocked/banned users who somehow are able to edit where they shouldn't (usually sockpuppets)
 * To revert otherwise mass disruptive behavior when an explanation can be found somewhere
 * Otherwise when an appropriate edit summary is given through a script
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 08:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: Rollback may NOT be used when
 * To revert good-faith edits where the reason to do so is unclear and unexplained
 * Back-and-forth reverts, such as but not exclusive to edit wars, not including revert wars with vandals
 * To display WP:OWN-like behavior in pages outside your own userspace
 * Otherwise when none of the criteria of WP:ROLLBACKUSE are fulfilled unless an appropriate edit summary is given through a script
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 08:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: You should undo your accidental rollback. Examples of ways you can do this include the undo button (not the rollback button, which may cause even more confusion), Twinkle's restore function, and a manual copy-paste. You should also leave an edit summary that says that the use of rollback was accidental.
 * What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?
 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 08:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer: No, because rollback will not leave an edit summary; the exception is when you have installed a script that appends an edit summary to the rollback and provide an appropriate edit summary.
 * Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?


 * ✅.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 08:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

-


 * , See assignment 9 above. Cheers.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have finished Assignment 9 and am ready for a review. UnnamedUser (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , Reviewed.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 08:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

---

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

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

--

, Greeting. The next phase of this course is Assignment 10 - "Monitoring Period", see above. If you have hundred of edits then I would not able to look through them all but will randomly select some to review your edits. Final Exam will follow after Monitoring Period. Cheers.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 08:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, it's been over seven days since you posted this section and you haven't talked to me yet. Is the monitoring period over? UnnamedUser (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , thanks for reminding. I will look at your edits tmr as I will be flying to another country later today. Best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 00:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Your monitoring period has shown no major issues. See below you Final. All the best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 09:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

--

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

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (15%)

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


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

Answer 1: I would consider it a test edit because inserting a short string of random characters is typical of a benign test edit. I would revert the test and place Uw-test1 on the user's talk page.

Answer 2: I would keep reverting and continue to place warnings: Uw-test2, then Uw-test3. If the user continues to test after the third warning, I would place Uw-vandalism4 since it is unlikely for a tester to keep testing after multiple warnings. If the user still makes test edits on articles, I would report to WP:AIV.


 * 3 & 4. A user adds their signature to an article after one being given a Uw-articlesig warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?

Answer 3: I would give the user a manually written warning like "Please do not add your signature to the text of an article. The edit history of the a page will list contributors to the page." This is a common mistake, and the less likely intent is to disrupt Wikipedia, so this is probably a good-faith edit but nonetheless disruptive.

Answer 4: Trying to communicate is still key. If the user responds with an objection, we can discuss. If he does not respond and continues to add his signature to article text, I would report him at WP:ANI about adding signatures to articles and refusing to communicate.


 * 5 & 6. A user adds 'Rose Wellingtons is the greatest at all time!' into an article. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?

Answer 5: Revert. This is obvious promotion, but it is unclear whether this is vandalism that is intended to disrupt Wikipedia knowingly or just a person who does not understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I would place uw-advert1 on the user's talk page, as this is suitable for either motive.

Answer 6: I would keep reverting and escalate warnings with the prefix "uw-advert." If the user continues to add promotional material after a final warning, I would report him to WP:AIV. It becomes apparent that this is vandalism because the user continues to disrupt Wikipedia after being told that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion.


 * 7 & 8. A user adds 'I think I make an edit in Wikipeida' into an article. The first time, and times after that?

Answer 7: Revert with an edit summary like "remove tests" and place uw-test1. This is a benign test edit.

Answer 8: Keep reverting and escalate warnings in the uw-test line. After level 3, uw-vandalism4 can be placed. With the same type of edit after the final warning, I should report the user to WP:AIV.


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

Answer 9: Since the claim of doubt is not substantiated, I would revert with an edit summary, e.g. "Removal of sourced content, take this to the talk page." I would assume good faith because the user's faith is uncertain.

Answer 10: Further insist on talk page discussion. If the edits are not obviously disruptive, I would stop reverting to avoid engaging in an edit war. If the editor does not respond to the talk page discussion after a week or so, I would restore the removed material with the reference.

Answer 11:


 * 12. An IP user removes unsourced content of an article, what would you do?

Answer: My first action would be to decide whether removing it was appropriate. Good reasons to remove content include irrelevance, being original research, or violating WP:BLP. If so, I would leave it as it is. Otherwise, I would revert with an edit summary like "Unexplained removal, unsourced material of encyclopedic value should be kept," leaving citation needed, unreferenced section, or more citations needed where applicable. The most appropriate warning would be uw-delete1. The faith is unclear – this could be intentional disruption through removal of content or a good-faith attempt to remove inappropriate content – so I would assume good faith.


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

Answer: The first task is to find whether the IP's reason is legitimate. Three types of irrelevant information are overly intricate detail, off-topic comments, and too much description as to give undue weight to a certain viewpoint. If the material really is irrelevant, I would leave the edit as it is. However, if it is relevant, I would revert and state why it is relevant and place uw-delete1 on the user's talk page. Further discussion would be on the article talk page. This is not obviously vandalism, so I would assume good faith.


 * 14. An IP user adds "My parents do not love me. I going to jump out the balcony and kill myself", what would you do?

Answer: I would revert the edit immediately. The severity of the suicide threat indicates that is more likely intentionally disruptive. I would follow WP:EMERGENCY and email "emergency@wikimedia.org" with the diff and explanatory details. Administrators should also be contacted privately to spread awareness and delete the revision.


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

Answer: Revert the edit immediately as an obvious attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. Email "emergency@wikimedia.org" with the diff and explanatory details. Find the user who is being threatened and contact him privately (e.g. through email) to avoid public scrutiny. Administrators should also be contacted privately to spread awareness and delete the revision.

Part 2 Part 2 (15%)

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


 * 1. A user blanks Crab Nebula

Answer: Uw-delete4im (assuming the entire page was blanked)


 * 2. A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Greg Hardy

Answer: Uw-attempt1


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

Answer: Uw-attempt1


 * 4. A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Delphi

Answer: Uw-vandalism2


 * 5. A user section blanks without a reason on Leon Trotsky.

Answer: uw-blank1


 * 6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

Answer: uw-test1


 * 7. A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Fiji.

Answer: uw-advert1


 * 8. A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Rico Verhoeven.

Answer: uw-biog1


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

Answer: If those are the only edits, just report to WP:AIV as a vandalism-only account. If there are other edits, place uw-delete4im.


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

Answer: Report to WP:AIV for vandalism after final warning.


 * 11. A user blanks your userpage and replaced it with 'I hate this user. He is a dick!' (you have had a number of problems with this user in the past).

Answer: It depends on the severity and recency of the past problems. Generally, if the problems are severe and recent, I would report the user to ANI. If the problems are less severe and more distant, I would give one warning before reporting to ANI.


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

Answer: Uw-image1


 * 13. A user blanks your user page and replaced it with 'Idiot Nazi guy' just because you reverted his vandalism and he got angry with you.

Answer: If he is a new user, he should be reported to WP:AIV to be blocked as a vandalism-only account/clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. If he is an IP, uw-vandal4 or uw-vandal4im is appropriate. If the person has a history of positive contributions, I would report to WP:ANI.


 * 14. A user adds "Italic text to Sydney

Answer: uw-test1


 * 15. A user adds "he loves fuck little boy" to Chris Hemsworth

Answer: uw-biog4im. Email "oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org" to request oversight as libelous material, and privately contact an administrator for revdel before the oversight.

Part 3 (10%)

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


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

Answer: Db-multiple (G11, A1)


 * 2. Stephen Smiths is the coolest kid in Timbuktu.

Answer: Db-multiple (G11, A7)


 * 3. Joe goes to Finland and comes home !

Answer: Db-nocontext


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

Answer: Db-hoax


 * 5. Fuck Wiki!

Answer: Db-multiple (G10, A1)

What would you do in the following circumstance:
 * 6. A user blanks a page they very recently created

Answer: Place db-blanked on the talk page to request speedy deletion under "G7. Author requests deletion".


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

Answer: I would ask the author on his user talk page if he wants to delete the page. If he wants to delete the page, I would re-place the speedy deletion tag and explain that it's a quick way to have a page deleted. If he still intends to work on the page, I would draftify the article and notify the user of the draftification, then place db-r2 on the mainspace redirect to delete the redirect to draft.


 * 8 & 9. A user who is the creator of the page remove the "afd" tag for the first time and times after that?

Answer 8: Revert and warn the user with Uw-afd1.

Answer 9: Escalate warnings up the uw-afd series: uw-afd2, then uw-afd3, then uw-afd4. Once the user removes the AfD notice again after a level 4 warning, report the user to WP:ANI for disruptive editing.


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

Answer: Request speedy deletion on the draft page with Db-draft. If the creator is still actively editing, I would inform him first out of courtesy, asking if he still intends to work on the draft.

Part 4 (10%)

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


 * 1. TheMainStreetBand

Answer: Promotional username (unambiguously represents name of organization), discuss with user on talk page and encourage to choose new name.

Answer: Disruptive username (makes harmonious editing difficult; less serious violation), discuss with user on talk page and encourage to choose new name.
 * 2. Poopbubbles

Answer: Misleading username (implies being a bot when actually not), discuss with user on user talk page and encourage to choose new name. uw-botun is a template specifically designed for this type of scenario. However, this is not a username violation if it is declared to be intended to be an actual bot. If it is an unauthorized bot, I would report it to an administrator to be blocked.
 * 3. Brian's Bot


 * 4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

Answer: A confusing username that is discouraged by the username policy (overly lengthy) but does not require action by itself. I would leave this user alone until disruptive editing or vandalism occurs.


 * 5. Bobsysop

Answer: Misleading username (implies adminship), discuss with user on user talk page and encourage to choose new name.


 * 6. 12, 23 June 2012

Answer: Misleading username (similar to an edit timestamp), discuss with user on user talk page and encourage to choose new name.


 * 7. PMiller

Answer: Not a username policy breach; real names or variations on them are permitted.

Answer: Misleading username (impersonation of celebrity), discuss with user on user talk page and encourage to choose new name.
 * 8. OfficialJustinBieber


 * 9. The Dark Lord of Wiki

Answer: Not a username policy breach; although it implies authority, there is no permission on Wikipedia called "Lord."


 * 10. I love you

Answer: Not a username policy breach, obviously does not fit under any of the 4 types of prohibited usernames.

Part 5 (10%)
Answer:
 * Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.


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

Answer: Yes. Although it is not considered edit warring to remove obvious vandalism, persistently reverting what you consider subtle vandalism can be edit warring. Calling an edit "subtle vandalism" is not a valid excuse as long as you do not have solid evidence that suggests bad faith.


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

Answer: Vandalism-only accounts should we reported at WP:AIV. An entry should be added at the bottom with the following syntax: * vandalism-only account ~ This can be automated through Twinkle.


 * 3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

Answer: WP:ANI is usually the right place to go, although there are more specific noticeboards (e.g. the external link noticeboard for ambiguous linkspam). A new section should be made at the bottom. An example of a section title would be User: The report should include a description of the situation, including involved pages and users. Diffs should be provided as evidence to claims about the situation. It should also be clear that you are reporting a user for behavioral issues, not asking for a resolution in a content dispute. The user(s) reported must receive a substed ANI-notice on the talk page, and this may also be done with other users who are not being reported but are involved in the situation.


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

Answer: At the bottom of WP:UAA, add a report. The syntax should be like: * <reason for username violation> ~ This can be automated through Twinkle.


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

Answer: Personal attacks should be reported at WP:ANI, with a new section at the bottom. A section title could be: Personal attacks by User: A description of the situation should be offered, with diffs of the personal attacks and other important edits. Other information to include in the report is the names of the users and pages affected. The user reported in the situation must be notified with ANI-notice on his talk page; other users, such as those who were personally attacked, may also receive the message.


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

Answer: The noticeboard to report edit warring (generally) is WP:AN3. A new section should be created with the pages affected, users reported, diffs, and comments. An3-notice must be placed on the talk page of every user reported.

For more complex abuse that is not strictly 3RR violations, the report should be at WP:ANI instead with similar evidence plus a description of the situation. ANI-notice is the appropriate talk page notice here.


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

Answer: In WP:BLP/N, a new section should be created with the name of the article with the BLP violations along with a description of the situation. BLP noticeboard should be added to the name of the article with BLP violations.


 * 8. Where and how should a sock puppet be reported?

Answer: A suspected sockpuppet should be reported at WP:SPI. (Obvious sockpuppets who need to be blocked immediately can be reported at WP:AIV or WP:UAA.) Find the page Sockpuppet investigations/ ; add a report if it already exists or create a new page. The template to create a report is SPI report (which should also be substed). This can be automated through Twinkle.


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

Answer: WP:RPP is the venue for page protection requests. A new entry should be added at the bottom of "Current requests for increase in protection level" with the name of the page, the type of protection requested, and a reason for protection. This can be automated through Twinkle.


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

Answer: The noticeboard to report a 3RR violation is WP:AN3. A new section should be created with the pages affected, users reported, diffs, and comments. An3-notice must be placed on the talk page of every user reported.

Part 6 - Theory in practice (40%)

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

Answer 1: revert, warning

Answer 2: revert, warning

Answer 3: revert, warning

Answer 4: revert, warning

Answer 5: revert, warning


 * 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, & 11. Find and revert two good faith edit, two self-revert test edit, two test edit and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.

Answer 6 (good faith edit):

Answer 7 (good faith edit):

Answer 8 (self-revert edit):

Answer 9 (self-revert edit):

Answer 10 (test edit): test, revert, welcome

Answer 11 (test edit): test, revert, warning


 * 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16. Correctly report five users (three AIV and two of 3RR to ANI). Give the diffs (revert and AIV/ANI) of your reports below.

Answer 12 (vandalism - AIV): report, block

Answer 13 (vandalism - AIV): report, block

Answer 14 (vandalism - AIV): report, block

Answer 15 (3RR):

Answer 16 (3RR):


 * 17, 18, 19, 20 & 21. Correctly request the protection of five articles (2 pending changes level 1 and 3 semi protection) ; post the diffs of your requests below.

Answer 17 - pending changes level 1 protected:

Answer 18 - pending changes level 1 protected:

Answer 19 - semi protection: request, protection

Answer 20 - semi protection:

Answer 21- semi protection::


 * 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26. Correctly nominate five articles for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nominations below.

Answer 22 (promotion): page, notice

Answer 23 (copyvio): page, notice

Answer 24 (A7/A9/A11): page, notice

Answer 25 (your choice): page, notice

Answer 26 (your choice): page, notice


 * 27. 28, 29, 30, 31 & 32. Correctly report five username as a breach of policy.

Answer 28: report, block

Answer 29: report, block

Answer 30: report, block

Answer 31: report, block

Answer 32: report, block


 * 33 & 34. Why is edit warring prohibited? What leads to edit warring?

Answer 33: When users repeatedly restore their preferred versions of articles, they are contradicting the spirit of collaborative editing. They are not engaging in discussion, which is essential to building the encyclopedia. Also, edit warring creates animosity and discord, discouraging contribution.

Answer 34: Edit warring happens when an editor (or group of editors) repeatedly restores a preferred version of a page. The users are unwillingly to calmly discuss because they are more concerned with their preferred version to be present in the short term – they cannot accept their own version being modified in a way they do not like.


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

Answer: Misinformation and disruption can be easily mistaken to be credible on Wikipedia. When false information is added to a BLP or other disruptive behavior manifests itself on the page, misinformation is easily spread to readers. In turn, their perceptions of the topics they read about change. BLP vandalism puts the reputations of living people at stake – it damages real lives, not ideas or inanimate objects, so it puts more at stake.


 * 36 & 37. What would you do if a troll keeps harassing you? What must you not engage with the trolls?

Answer 36: Like all disruptive editing, the troll's edits should be reverted. There is much subtle variation in dealing with trolls, and a user's own judgment should determine what is best in a particular situation. It is usual for reverts and blocks to be immediate, but quick reactions may encourage trolling. Slow reverts and blocks deny gratification, but they leave disruption untouched for a while. Reporting on high-profile noticeboards may increase the speed of ending the disruption but invite more trolling. In general, minimize the amount of reaction and do not engage with the troll in discussion – ignore the troll beyond what is necessary to end the disruption.

Answer 37: A troll intends to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia, often to provoke a negative reaction. By engaging with a troll, one is displaying a reaction, showing that the troll has indeed disrupted Wikipedia and elicited a negative reaction. The fulfillment of a troll's goals encourages a troll to continue trolling.


 * 38. What is the difference between semi and full protection?

Answer: In semi protection, only the user right autoconfirmed or confirmed is needed to edit a page. In full protection, no one can edit except administrators.


 * 39. What is the difference between semi and pending protection?

Answer: In semi protection, IP and non-confirmed user edits are not allowed. In pending protection, IP and non-confirmed user edits are logged, but they are not displayed until they are accepted by a reviewer.


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

Answer: Personal attacks do not contribute to a discussion and instead distract from it, substituting emotional reactions for working toward forming an agreeable plan. They make cooperation and difficult and unappealing and display a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.


 * See Final exam above. All the best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 10:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)]
 * I'm confused by Part 1 Question 12, what does An IP user removes unsourced article mean (blanked the page?)? – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 22:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "removes unsourced content of an article" - sorry missed out a few words.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, how am I supposed to revert a "self-reverted test edit"? Do you mean an incompletely self-reverted test edit, or should I just warn the user? – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 04:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A self reverted test edit is the editor make a test edit and reverted their own edit on the very next edit sot the page is restored back to the state prior the new editor made any edit on the page. This means you dont have to revert any edit but place a warning message on editor's talk page. I dont think you have rollback right yet for such you cant use Huggle (you can apply when you finished this course and note on your request message that you have complete CVUA course - send link). In a Huggle, there is a "editing test" and a "editing test-self reverted" revert the edit + send warning message to editor" feature. If you use twinkle that use "test edit warning message" + personal message stating "Understand you have reverted your test edit, kindly use your sandbox next time". By the way, Happy New Year.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 05:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You have only less than 10 questions to answer for the final exam. Kindly work on it to get it finish. Let me know if you need any help.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 03:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)