User:Mz7/CVUA/Knightrises10

Hello Knightrises10, and 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 in your answers, 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 my talk page.

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

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


 * Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
 * Good faith edit is the one when a person edits an article, thinking that what he is doing is correct. They have no wrong intentions. They just want to improve the article, but it tends out to be an unhelpful edit.

Vandalism edits are the wrong edits intentionally made. The person knows that the info he is adding is wrong, or that he shouldn't be removing a particular content, but decides to commit Vandalism for personal interest or to damage the encyclopedia/article.

1. This was good faith edit because the person tried to improve the article and added content, but did not provide citation. 2. This 3. The editor might have thought this is correct info, but provided no reference and on research I came to know that she wasn't in the list 1. This is Vandalism because the person removed categories 2. This 3. This
 * 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
 * Vandalism

Done. Knightrises10 (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good responses! For your first example of vandalism, I would say that the reason it is vandalism is because the edit inserted a spam link, not necessarily that it removed categories (removing categories could be a good-faith action). Also good, adding unsourced content is typically not vandalism, but a user who genuinely wants to add something they think is true, but isn't verifiable. Mz7 (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2018 (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:
 * Why do we warn users?
 * We warn users mainly to prevent further vandalism and to educate them about Wikipedia policies. To let them them know that what they edited was wrong, and that they can use Wikipedia for helpful edits.
 * ✅ Good, the key is the educate the editors, letting them know that indeed Wikipedia can be openly edited and to invite them to contribute constructively. Sometimes, vandalism is just someone trying to see whether they can actually edit Wikipedia. Warnings are a good way to encourage these kinds of users to stop before any administrative action (i.e. a block) is needed. If administrators tried to block every single editor that vandalized a page, we would quickly grow overwhelmed with work. Mz7 (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
 * In case of extreme vandalism, if a user has vandalised in large amount over a short period. It can also be given if a user damages a biography, or threatens another user. It is a final warning.
 * ✅ Yes, exactly. It's for egregious cases that needs to be stopped immediately, e.g. if it's spreading to a lot of pages in a short period, or if it is threatening specific users or people. Mz7 (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?
 * Yes, the template should be substituted so that the message on the talk page remains the same. For example, the template might be updated in the future, and the message might be changed. So by substituting the template, we ensure that any future changes have no effect on the message that was valid at that time. We substitute template by adding  in beginning.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * I will report the user at AIAV so that an admin can take any action and block if needed.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please give examples (using ) of three different warnings (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.
 * is given when a user removed sourced content, without stating a proper reason.
 * If the edit was obviously vandalism.
 * If the edit is not made in a neutral way. Knightrises10 (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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.

Completed this too.Knightrises10 (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I've left feedback above and posted your next assignment below. It's a little more hands-on than the questions above; feel free to take your time. In this past, I've been willing to waive the two AIV reports requirement if you're having trouble coming across situations where it would be appropriate to report. Mz7 (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Finding and reverting vandalism

 * 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

Can you please check the ones I have filled? I reported two IP users too. I will hopefully complete the table by tomorrow, if I don't get much homework. Knightrises10 (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC) I have completed the table. Knightrises10 (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did see your pings, and I apologize for not acknowledging them right away. Reviewing diffs like these always takes a while for me because I try to look at the warnings you leave, as well as the context in which the revert happened, so I try to wait until my real-life schedule has a decent amount of free time cleared. In any case, I agree with almost all of your reverts here! My only concern is the last one; it looks like the editor was just trying to add the photo in and removed some content by mistake. I would have probably just restored the text that was removed without touching the photo. Mz7 (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see. I will try to remain more careful next time.Knightrises10 (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2018 (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. In addition to manually going through Special:RecentChanges, 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. Here are a few.

There aren't any questions associated with this section, just some helpful readings.

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 right
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.


 * Is it okay to use just one of the tools? Which one would you prefer? Knightrises10 (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * These tools are completely optional and exist solely to make your life easier. Twinkle is a must-have. I used the user creation log for a while before I got rollback. After I got rollback, I used Huggle a decent amount. Huggle essentially has a live feed of recent edits that you can select from, whereas STiki has you review diffs one-by-one and choose how to classify them. Huggle is good at catching really obvious vandalism (e.g. "poop" vandalism, obvious defacement), whereas STiki is decent at catching some of the more subtle vandalism that might go undetected at first (e.g. deliberately adding false information). I encourage you to try them out yourself to get a feel for how they work. Go slowly at first, since they have the ability to make many hundreds of edits very quickly. Mz7 (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I will surely try them. And I have done the next part too. Knightrises10 (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2018 (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.


 * Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?
 * Recognition encourages or motivates the trolls. If we react angrily, their mission becomes successful, because that's what they want to do. They want attention. So we should deny recognition as it says "Don't feed the trolls".
 * ✅ Good. Not only do trolls want to harm the project, they also think your reaction is funny. If you just undo their edits without giving them any recognition whatsoever, nothing would frustrate them more. Mz7 (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?
 * A Good Faith user might be polite and would be eager to learn. Even if they are irritated, their intentions wouldn't be bad. A troll will intentionally continue to vandalize and will be way more uncivil than a good faith editor.
 * ✅ A good faith user is not necessarily polite. The key is to look at the edits that the user made, and if it is clear that they aren’t here to contribute constructively, you can probably assume that they aren’t actually interested in why you reverted their edit. On the other hand, if you’re not sure, our guideline is to assume that they are a good faith user. Mz7 (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Done this too.Knightrises10 (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2018 (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.


 * In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
 * A page should be semi-protected if it is frequently vandalised by IP and new users. It is also used to prevent sockpuppets from editing.
 * ✅ Indeed, if an article is only getting a few instances vandalism per month, I would probably be inclined to decline a request for page protection. On the other hand, if a subject is getting an unusually large amount of vandalism in a short period of time, that's when I think semi-protection is best. Mz7 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes level 1 protected?
 * When a page is not frequently edited, but is occasionally vandalised. It may also receive a mix of constructive and unconstructive edits.
 * ✅ Right, unlike semi-protection, pending changes is more suitable for pages that are less frequently edited. I tend to grant pending changes most often on biographies of living persons, since these are our highest priority articles for getting right. Mz7 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * A page should be fully protected if semi-protection and Pending changes have proved ineffective. It should be fully protected if there is high level of vandalism from different users including the auto-confirmed users. It is also used to resolve edit wars.
 * Nowadays we also have extended confirmed protection which is in between semi-protection and full protection. Rarely are pages fully protected for vandalism, but it does happen if extended confirmed accounts are doing it. By far the most common use case for full protection is to stop edit warring. Mz7 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
 * A page is salted if it has been created over and over again, and deleted. I also once salted an article that had been deleted three time before.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
 * Talk pages are rarely protected, only if they are being vandalised by IP/new users.
 * ✅ Yes, it's rare, and if it does happen, the duration is typically short. Mz7 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.
 * I requested semi protection of this article here

The request was accepted and the page has been protected for 3 months as you can see here

Beside this, I also requested one here.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.


 * Briefly explain, in what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?
 * A page should be speedily deleted if it doesn't fulfill any Wikipedia guidelines, can be a test page or a page created for vandalising. It is not created according to Wikipedia standards. I previously tagged a few pages for speedy deletion, and the admins deleted them.
 * Right idea. Specifically, a page can be speedy deleted if all of its revisions meet one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion. These criteria are very specific. Just because a page doesn't meet WIkipedia's standards does not necessarily mean it can be speedily deleted. Some standards, like notability, require a deletion discussion. Mz7 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I hope I have done them correctly. Knightrises10 (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good work. I've posted a few scenarios below to test your familiarity with the criteria for speedy deletion. Mz7 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

A user with the username "BobSucks" creates an article called "John Smith" that contains solely the following text: John Smith is the worst elementary school teacher on the planet.
 * Scenario 1

Delete under G3. The article clearly seems to be Vandalism, as it calls John Smith 'worst'.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

A user with the username "GoodTimesLLC" creates a user page with the following text: Good Times LLC is an organization dedicated to helping your children get the highest quality education at an affordable price. Visit our website at goodtimes.info and contact us at 123-456-7890. Advertising and promotional, so delete under G11. I have previously seen and tagged for deletion a large number of promotional user pages.
 * Scenario 2
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

A user creates an article titled "Edward Gordon" with the following text: Edward Gordon (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 5,000 subscribers on YouTube. Delete under A7 as the actor has no claim of significance, and the article is not cited at all. However, I will also check about Edward Gordon on Google, and if I can find several sources, I might improve the article myself, as I am interested in this.
 * Scenario 3
 * ✅ Good instinct to check for sources first! Mz7 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content: Bazz Ward was a great roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz. (Attribution: came up with this scenario as a question to an old RfA candidate. Since my creativity sucks, I've borrowed his example here.)
 * Scenario 4

I will, as told in the previous one, Google about Bazz Ward, to find if I can improve the article. If I can't find anything, I will probably tag it for deletion under A1 for having no context. Or maybe under A7.
 * Google is a good first instinct. In this case, if you actually search for Bazz Ward and Lemmy, you will find that they are mentioned on the article The Nice. Redirecting could be a valid alternative to deletion. Mz7 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

A user creates an article that was clearly copied and pasted directly from another website, which states "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom of it.
 * Scenario 5

Delete under G12.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.
 * Scenario 6

If it already exists on another wikimedia project, then it can be deleted under A2. Otherwise, it can be tagged with Not English
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
 * Scenario 7

First I will check the previous revision. If it seems to pass WP Guidelines, I will not tag it for deletion. However, if it doesn't, then it can be deleted under G7.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

A new user creates a user page with nothing but the following content: Jlakjrelekajroi3j192809jowejfldjoifu328ur3pieisgreat How would this scenario be different if the page was created in a different namespace?
 * Scenario 8

The user page might have been used a test page,so it shouldn't be speedily deleted. However, if the user created this page on a mainspace, then it can be deleted under G1 or G2.
 * ✅ Good, we're generally pretty lenient about what can exist on user pages. This means that gibberish is allowed. Mz7 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Completed Knightrises10 10:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I am a bit unsure regarding scenario 4, but still I have answered what I think can be correct. Knightrises10 (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've left feedback above. At this point, I would like some feedback from you on how this course is going. Has it been covering things that you already know? Are there specific areas which you are not sure about and you would like me to cover in further detail? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything is going well and I have learned pretty a lot upto now. By the way, I have read your email. Thanks. And yes, I have created a few articles.Knightrises10 (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2018 (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).

It can be their real name, so it would be better to leave the user alone. However, if the user claims to be a famous person like Dennis Johnson or Dwayne Johnson, then I will report it as a misleading username.
 * DJohnson
 * Yes, since real names are allowed, we don't have to do anything about this user, even if they are promoting someone named DJohnson (in other words, promotional editing is a separate issue from editing under a real name). If they claim to be a famous person, then we may do a username block to prevent impersonation and ask that they send verification of their identity to the WP:OTRS team. Once OTRS verifies the identity, then they may be unblocked and can continue editing under their real name. Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

First I will wait for the user to edit. If the edits made are promotional, then I will report the user for a promotional username. However, if they are making constructive edits, then I would talk to them on their talk page, and ask them to change the name.
 * LMedicalCentre
 * ✅ Excellent. Wait for the user the edit first, then, if the edits are promotional, the username can be reported. If the edits don't really have anything to do with a medical center, a discussion is probably a good first step. Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks like a disruptive username or we can say, offensive. It might be created mainly for Vandalism or trolling. I would report it for blatant violations. However, if the edits made by the user are constructive, I might ask the user to request name change.
 * Fuqudik
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The name mainly seems like promotional or of shared use. Like the Staff from Coles. So it can be reported for Usernames implying shared use. However again, I will first wait for the user to edit. If the edits are constructive, then will ask them to change the name.
 * ColesStaff
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

An offensive username as we all know, Bieber isn't gay. It is mainly trolling him, which is definitely wrong. So report immediately.
 * Bieberisgay
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Breaching Non-script usernames so should be reported. The emoji as a name makes no sense.
 * Follow-up question: How would you go about dealing with this username? Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry but are you talking about that emoji username? If yes, I will see if the user is here in good faith. Then I will talk to him to change the name or request a new account. Blocks are always the last solution, and should not be done unless if the user is here for vandalising.
 * What if the emoji username user refuses to change their username? What would you do, if anything? Mz7 (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I will report it for block at UAA, but I think here it can be better to report first at RFCN
 * WP:UAA isn't the right venue for WP:NOEMOJI violations. Note that the policy states that Before blocking, disagreements as to whether a particular username is acceptable should be discussed at WP:Requests for comment/User names. Mz7 (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I have completed this task. Will wait for the next one. I'm a bit worried if you really have forgiven my mistakes. I hope you consider me just like before that mistake. I promise not to do that again. And please don't get me wrong. Thanks - Knightrises10 (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's all good. I was never angry about anything. As I said in the email, it would probably wise to slow down a little bit and make sure you are getting things right before you enter new areas of Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Scenario 1
You encounter an IP vandalising Justin Bieber by adding in statements that he is gay.
 * Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?
 * Vandalism. Because according to all reliable sources, Bieber isn't gay. The IP is adding unsourced content. Clearly editing in bad faith, and trying to misinform the public.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?
 * Breaching WP:BLP for adding unsourced and false information about a living person.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?
 * {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} or {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * No I cannot be blocked because I reverted obvious Vandalism. Reverting vandalism is one of the exemptions of the 3 revert rule.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

IPvandal because the edits are made by the IP user.
 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

"Vandalism after final (level 4 or 4im) warning given" using Twinkle.
 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Scenario 2
You see a new account called "Hi999" that has added random letters to one article.
 * Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?
 * I would never call it Vandalism immediately. This can be a Test Edit, as the user might want to see if they can really edit Wikipedia. However, if the user continues to add random articles even after warning, then we can consider it Vandalism.
 * ✅ Good! Random letters are often a sign of test editing – editors who submit edits just to see whether they can actually edit Wikipedia. Test editing is not considered vandalism and should be handled differently in most cases. Mz7 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?
 * {{subst:uw-test1}}
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?
 * I would either use Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-AFG (Green). But I'll prefer the green one.
 * ✅ If you use the blue option, it would be helpful to say "test edits" in the edit summary to indicate that you are identifying these edits as a test edit and not vandalism. Mz7 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * I will report the user if I think they have completely ignored the previous 3 warnings, and I think they might vandalise again. In the past, I have seen(and reported) some users getting blocked before level 4 warning. However, I might consider to give the user another chance, if it seems appropriate according to the edits made. In that case, I will give a level 4 warning. If the user again vandalises, I will report them.
 * ✅ Good. I don't think there's an obviously right answer in this case. I've blocked editors who haven't reached level 4 all the time, and I've also declined reports at AIV for not going to level 4. Use your judgment. If the editor is rampaging across many articles rapidly, go straight to AIV. If it's only a handful of edits that could even be test edits, then take it slow. Mz7 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?
 * Yes, the user can be blocked indef. as they are surely not here in good faith, and are damaging the encyclopedia. They can be blocked for being "Vandalism-only account".
 * ✅ True, we often block accounts that have no good edits indefinitely, even if they have not been blocked before. Mz7 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

vandal because the account is registered.
 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

"Vandalism only account"
 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2018 (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.
 * Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option would you use?
 * I would revert it using Rollback (Blue) feature of Twinkle.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If you do revert which warning template would you use?
 * I will use {{subst:uw-spam1}} or {{subst:uw-advert1}}
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I will tag it under WP:G11 and WP:G12
 * Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I will leave uw-username at their talk page for being promotional username. I can also report the username straight at UAA.
 * Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, for being a promotional username.
 * Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I have a question. For the exemptions for 3RR it states Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law. So what if we revert content that is illegal in British law, or that of any other country? Knightrises10 (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Task completed. Knightrises10 (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I have another question related to previous topic. Is there any difference between rollback and Twinkle, except for the advantage of being able to use Huggle? Aren't they almost similar? Thanks, Knightrises10 (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For the first question, could you give me an example of something you would revert that is legal in the US, but not in the UK? For the second question, there is no functional difference between the rollback feature in Twinkle and the rollback feature in MediaWiki (the one you need to get permission for). The MediaWiki rollback is faster than the Twinkle rollback, and it also lets you more easily save custom edit summaries, but ultimately, the end result is the same for both. Mz7 (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It was just an example. I know that almost everything that is illegal in US is also illegal elsewhere. Knightrises10 (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you tell me about your timezone, by the way? Knightrises10 (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm in the Pacific Time Zone, currently. It's unclear to me whether Wikipedia content needs to follow laws in countries other than the United States. In Turkey, for example, Wikipedia is currently censored because its content supposedly violates the law, though Wikipedia editors have refused to change the content in the Turkish government's favor. On the other hand, the European Union is currently considering copyright legislation that may have an impact on Wikipedia. Within the context of this course, my advice would be to "use common sense" when it comes to removing illegal content. Mz7 (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks - Knightrises10 (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Rollback
So, this is the moment in the course when I usually ask you questions about rollback (see below). I know that you were recently warned about disruptive editing by TonyBallioni, an administrator I thoroughly respect, who suggested it might be wise to wait before getting access to rollback. I've provided the questions below, but I'm afraid it'll probably be a good idea to wait before using a tool like Huggle that lets you revert very quickly. Mz7 (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.
 * Rollback button should be used to revert clear and obvious vandalim, to revert our own edits that were made mistakenly, to revert edits in our talk page, revert edits made by blocked users, and to revert widespread misguided edits.

It should never be used to revert good faith edits, or when we need to provide an edit summary. It should never be used for edit warring.
 * ✅ Yes, in general rollback is for clear, obvious vandalism only – the kind that any reasonable editor would be able to look at the edit and easily agree that the edit was submitted with the intention of harming Wikipedia. Good faith edits, even those that might be unhelpful or that you disagree with, should not be rollbacked. This is the fundamental distinction which administrators looking to grant rollback will focus on; editors with a recent history of misidentifying edits as vandalism may be denied the right. Mz7 (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I will undo my edit quickly, and will leave an edit summary, "undid mistaken rollback". Or I can follow it with dummy edit
 * Hopefully this will never happen, but it does occasionally. If you accidentally use rollback, what should you do?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?
 * No. To leave an edit summary, I will have to revert using Twinkle.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I am done with this. Also wanted to inform you that I am not thinking to use Huggle, because I have seen that even some very experienced editors have made mistakes using it. Knightrises10 (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually I'll be free this week from Wednesday onwards due to some local holidays. So, it will be a good time for me to patiently complete the next assignment. So I hope you'll soon do that, ONLY IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH TIME TOO. I know you have a busy schedule too, so it's upto you and you may check my previous assignment later. I'm only saying this because from the next week, I have some Tests coming up at school. Knightrises10 (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was thinking of getting some training at NPP/S too. Do you think I should? Knightrises10 (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh, I didn't even know that program existed, so I can't really tell you anything about it. New page patrolling is kind of time consuming and isn't that interesting to me, so I don't do it very often. Like counter-vandalism, I don't think it's necessary to go through a whole school/academy program about it if you follow the guidelines and respond to feedback appropriately. Please do keep in mind what I told you over email about hat collecting. Do you want to do this program because you want the new page reviewer right, or because you genuinely want to commit yourself to the tedious, though necessary process of new page patrolling? Mz7 (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read about hat collecting, and I am not doing this for getting rights ☹️ Neither do I think that getting these rights will make a user better than others. Knightrises10 (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * What's next, btw? Knightrises10 (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fully protected pages can only be edited by administrators, am I right? I requested one for Salman of Saudi Arabia since a content dispute was going on. Knightrises10 (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, fully protected pages can only be edited by administrators. As we covered above, it's typically used when multiple users are edit warring on a page and when blocking individual users wouldn't be a feasible alternative. I'm still trying to decide what's next for you in this course. Mz7 (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh ok :) I'll wait - Knightrises10 (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Can we continue now? Knightrises10 (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)