User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Cabrils

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/Cabrils.

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

How to use this page

This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.

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

Twinkle Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.

Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.

I have enabled Twinkle! Cabrils (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism

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

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

Answer: A good faith edit is an edit which is consistent with the project's purpose, even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, as long as it is an effort to improve the encyclopedia, it is not considered vandalism. Vandalism, which has a specific definition in Wikipedia, is editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, and includes the malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, all of which is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.

Good faith edits and vandalism can be distinguished by carefully considering whether edits are beneficial, or edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are clearly in breach of the guidelines. Even if some edits violate some core policy of Wikipedia, they may not necessarily be 'vandalism' if it is clear that an editor is intending to improve Wikipedia.

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.

Y. The key here is the editor "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. We can check the editor history log and talk page to see their editing pattern if their edit is in question (could be good faith but dont know the Wikipedia guidelines). Cassiopeia talk 22:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Good faith

Answer:

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cambridge_Elementary_School&diff=1139545108&oldid=1123752641

. That is an unsourced edit which is not a vandlaism act but we would place an unsourced warning/educational message on editor talk page (Assignment 3). Cassiopeia talk 22:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan_Brotherhood&diff=1100527186&oldid=1099493450

. That is a vandalism edit. Wikipedia is uncensored and as per source and not about one's liking or not/ Cassiopeia talk 22:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=1128230144&oldid=1127048152

The info added is a per source. Cassiopeia talk 22:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

(4) (edit besides removed unsourced): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shark_attack&diff=1109022286&oldid=1109015278

. the editor is blocked from editing - see here. Cassiopeia talk 23:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

(5)(edit besides removed unsourced): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_Folau&diff=1108264707&oldid=1108120894

. Cassiopeia talk 23:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

(6)(edit WP:MOS formatting of table and etc.): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephanie_Bennett_%28harpist%29&diff=385310821&oldid=385306800

. Cassiopeia talk 02:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

(7)(edit WP:MOS formatting of table and etc.): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Investigation_Agency&diff=1050211846&oldid=1050211365

. Cassiopeia talk 02:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism

Answer:

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doggystyle&diff=1139604495&oldid=1139604442

removed of sourced content without any good explanation. Cassiopeia talk 22:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zimbabwe&diff=1139605013&oldid=1139604430

. removed of sourced Cassiopeia talk 22:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ranil_Wickremesinghe&diff=1139604959&oldid=1139332491

Cabrils (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

. removed of sourced Cassiopeia talk 22:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

(4) (edit besides removed sourced edit): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penis_fencing&diff=1050974466&oldid=1046696909

. Cassiopeia talk 23:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

(5)(edit besides removed sourced edit): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penis_fencing&diff=926688084&oldid=905073605

. Cassiopeia talk 23:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils Good day. 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.
You need to provide reasons, hist diffs - see diffs for instructions, of the/your edit and communication/warnings messages of the involved editor talk page for your answers.
(important) - do not revert more than 3 times within 24 hours on the same article unless the edits are absolutely considered blatant vandalisms for you will be blocked from editing. If you are not sure about the edits (whether it is a vandalism or not", pls do nothing and let other more experience/counter vandalism editors to take action.
pls note that the motto of CUVA is "Civility – Maturity – Responsibility." Welcome to CUVA. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 03:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Thanks . I have answered the questions. Cabrils (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils Pls note that I have change your message to me in using ping instead of putting user name (my username). Secondly pls answer 2 attentional questions for both good faith and vandalism edit. For good faith edit pls provide answer any but adding unsourced edit and for vandalism pls provide any but removed sourced edit. Ping when you have done. Cassiopeia talk 22:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thanks very much for your helpful feedback. I've provided 4 new answers as requested. I'm sorry, I don't think I'm understanding you regarding how to ping you, so I've included your username at the beginning of this message. Please let me know if you prefer that I don't do that?? Cabrils (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils See comments above. Pls answer additional 2 question for good faith edits. Good faith edits could be those editors that the editors do not know about the guidelines of WP:MOS, formatting of table and etc. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 23:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thanks very much for your feedback, that was informative. I've added what I think are 2 MOS edits, as requested. Cabrils (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils You need to provide hist diff and not the url pages and when you have done that, pls let me know. Cassiopeia talk 22:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Sorry about that. I've added what I think are 2 MOS edits, as requested. Cabrils (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia just pinging you again in case you missed this. Cabrils (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils Reviewed. Pls let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Cassiopeia talk 02:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thanks very much. I don't think I have any questions, so happy to continue forward. Cabrils (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2023 (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: To educate and inform them that their actions are against the rules and what the consequences are.

The purpose is to "educate" the editors on constructive editing, especially those who are new to Wikipedia and to "deter" them of such actions with stronger warnings leads up to a block. Cassiopeia talk 05:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Answer: For the worst kind of vandalism, which would justify only a single warning. Basically for situations that are extreme, severe or continuous. (It would be helpful to know if there is a tool/page that lists all instances of where the 4im warning has been used? 'What links here' just lists pages that link to the template page, rather than actual instances of the warning template being used.)

As 4im is an only warning it should be reserved for when it is clearly a bad faith edit with widespread and particularly egregious vandalism and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism. There is no list indicate use of 4im warnings when I see an example I will forward the link to you. Cassiopeia talk 05:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Answer: Substituting a template is not normally done, but there are some some templates that should be substituted rather than transcluded, which means that if the template changes, every page that uses it will update. You should substitute a template when you don't want the content to change. User warning templates should always be substituted. Templates are substituted by adding subst: after the opening braces, eg {{subst:uw-image1}}

{{yellow tick}] it should be used always so that the message on the users talk page does not change even if the template you used were to be altered at a later date. This is done manually by adding {{subst:template name}} instead of just the template name except using the Twinkle warning tool. Cassiopeia talk 05:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Answer: Report the user to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Answer i: {{subst:uw-disruptive1}} An editor has reverted an edit 3 times because they prefer their wording over the other wording.
{{subst:uw-bes2}} The editor then makes a personal attack on the editor who reverted their edits
{{subst:uw-own3}} The editor continues to be disruptive and asserts that their wording is always the best and should never be changed

. Cassiopeia talk 05:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Answer ii: {{subst:uw-advert1}} An IP editor makes changes that are clearly promotional
{{subst:uw-spam2}} The same editor adds inline external links to a business
{{subst:uw-nor3}} an editor adds promotional content from OR based on a RS

. Cassiopeia talk 05:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Answer iii: {{subst:uw-npov1}} an editor makes edits that clearly emphasizes a position that is not reflected in the RSs
{{subst:uw-fringe2}} An editor adds several sentences focusing on a minor issue that is only briefly mentioned in 1 RS.
{{subst:uw-harass4}} attacks on admins claiming they are overtly promoting a product that is dangerous

. Cassiopeia talk 05:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils See assignment 2 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 02:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thanks for this. I'm not sure I've correctly understood Question 5?? So please excuse my answers if they are not what you are looking for! Cabrils (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi, just pinging you here in case you missed my previous post. Thanks very much. Cabrils (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils Thank you for letting me know and I will look into it today. Cassiopeia talk 00:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi, just gently pinging you (I know you are very busy so there's no great urgency to reply). Thank you Cassiopa. Cabrils (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils Sorry for the delay, friend from oversea is in town, a little bit busy but I will look into the assignment - Give me a day or two. Thank you for your understanding.. Cassiopeia talk 01:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Absolutely! Please take your time if you need another week or two, that's totally fine. No rush at all. Enjoy your time there. Cabrils (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils See above comments. Sorry for taking so long to review your assignment as I have a friend in town and needed to play the host to tour guide for the last two weeks. I will post the next assignment and pls see below.05:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thanks very much, no worries at all. Feedback received and appreciated. Cabrils (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Tool

Twinkle

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

User creation log

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

Rollback

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

Huggle

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

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

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

Assignment

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

#	Type	Diff of your revert	Your comment - If you report to AIV please include the diff	CASS' Comment
Example	Unsourced	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
1	Test edit	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hindu_temples_in_India&diff=1155024142&oldid=1155020484	Appears to be test edit	N. Test edit is an edit make by new editor on their first/second edit (see here the editor edit history - here-1 which they intention is to see if they can "actually make an edit in Wikipedia", such as remove or add an alphabet, add "hello / test/" and sometime the editor would revert their own edit and such situation we called it "self revert test edit". Cassiopeia talk 08:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
2	Test edit	[1]	Self revert test edit	Y. Cassiopeia talk
3	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palazzo_degli_Alberti&diff=1155025096&oldid=1155025047	You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=1155025349&oldid=1155025133	Y Well-done. Cassiopeia talk 08:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
4	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021%E2%80%932022_Iraqi_political_crisis&diff=1155733894&oldid=1155733737	This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=1155734359&oldid=1155733954 NOTE another editor published the report on AVI a second before I clicked publish, so my report was not published, but you can see I was about to do so as I was the editor who posted the warning on the User Talk page.	Y. Ok I accept that (AIV report) for the assignment but not on the final exam. Cassiopeia talk 08:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
5	WP:NPOV	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Etsy&diff=1152228469&oldid=1152228359	Defaming the company by unsourced criticism in infobox, posted {{subst:uw-defamatory1}} on User Talk page	N That is a vandalism edit. NPOV is the info added/changed which is not written in neutral point of view and most cases the editor add WP:PUFF word to enhance or reduce the info which would effect the reader emotionally. Example: instead of stating "He won the fight in round two", the editor would put "He won the fight in spectacular fashion" as who determines the fight is considered spectacular for it is subective and compare to which fight and how. Cassiopeia talk 08:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
6	WP:NPOV	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Rufo&diff=1153085420&oldid=1153085281	Blatant NPOV vandalism, posted {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} on User Talk page	N. That is a vandalism edit. Cassiopeia talk 08:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
7	WP:SPAM	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessie_Gordon&diff=1152877793&oldid=1152877777	Possible vandalism or at least unsourced edits by IP- {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	Y. Good work. Cassiopeia talk 08:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
8	Talking on the article	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Kurds&diff=1152885016&oldid=1152884863	POV-type commentary- {{subst:uw-disruptive1}}	Y. I take that; but usually the example would be "I so bore and do you want to chat", "this guy is stupid, I met him in xxxxx and he doest even understand yyyyyy", or "my name is Kelly, dont come to California, I live here and it is not best state in US". Cassiopeia talk 08:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
9	Unsourced	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Yoho&diff=1152234208&oldid=1152233288	Defaming the living person by unsourced criticism in infobox, posted {{subst:uw-biog1}} on User Talk page	Y unsourced and defame (vandalism). Cassiopeia talk 08:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
10	Your Choice	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fernhill_School%2C_Rutherglen&diff=1152227321&oldid=1152226735	Blatant vandalism, posted {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} on User Talk page	Y Pls substitute "Your choice to Vandalism". Cassiopeia talk 08:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
11	Your Choice	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goodbye_Julia&diff=1152873283&oldid=1152872847	Possible vandalism or at least unsourced edits by IP- {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	Y Pls substitute "Your choice to Vandalism". Removed sourced content - vandalism edit. Cassiopeia talk 08:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
12	Your Choice	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albufeira&diff=1152873762&oldid=1152873627	Blatant vandalism by IP editor - - {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	Y Pls substitute "Your choice to Vandalism". Cassiopeia talk 08:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
13	Your Choice	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saikou_Janneh&diff=1152875248&oldid=1152873531	Possible vandalism or at least unsourced edits by IP- {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	Y Cassiopeia talk 08:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
14	Your Choice	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lagwagon&diff=1152877018&oldid=1152876823	Possible vandalism or at least unsourced edits by IP- {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	N unsourced content can be removed and it is not a vandalism edit. As content should be supported by independent, reliable source for verification as this is the primary policy in Wikipedia. Cassiopeia talk 08:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
15	Your Choice	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_language_in_the_United_States&diff=1152878737&oldid=1152878620	Blatant vandalism by IP editor - - {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	Y. Cassiopeia talk 08:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
16	Test edit	[2]	Appears to be test edit	Y Well, it could be but test edit but I am not sure the editor made the edit for the purpose of to try if they can edit Wikipedia or they want to to bold the text. Cassiopeia talk 10:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
17	WP:NPOV	[3]	NPOV edit--personal opinions without independent, reliable sources are not appropriate edits	Y. Cassiopeia talk 10:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
18	WP:NPOV	[4]	{{subst:uw-npov4}}	Y. NPOV, vandalism and unsourced. Cassiopeia talk 10:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
19	Talking in article	[5]	{{subst:uw-nor1}}	Y Good. Cassiopeia talk 10:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils Good day. See assignment 3 above. If Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. I use both Twinkle and Huggle (a better tool and a preference which is a user right tool). Pls provide hist diff (article page and editor talk page) and reasons. Cassiopeia talk 05:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils not sure you receive the ping and the assignment 3 above. Cassiopeia talk 21:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thank you, this ping received! Assignment 3 received, I will be in touch. Cabrils (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi, just an update: Sorry I have been busy on some other projects, but have started Assignment 3. I am finding it very slow and time consuming trying to find the examples of vandalism. I'm using the Recent Changes and User Creation logs as you suggest; and have installed Huggle (read only version because I do not have rollback permission); but nearly all the edits I discover that could be vandalism have already been reverted (often by Wesoree). So I just wanted to confirm that I'm not doing the process incorrectly? Thanks very much. Cabrils (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils You are doing correctly. Another way to do it is to save some of the articles which you are familiar or articles which often encounter vandalism in your watchlist, and on your preference check watchlist edit to be notify on your email and you might able to find some edits which you needed for the assignment. I am not sure where you are resided at the moment, most edits are done during the waking hours of US times and if you could spend sometime outside those hours, you could find some of the edits needed. Do note those counter vandalsim editor who use Huggle are very experience and extremely quick to identify vandalism in one to 2 seconds - I would usually revert and warn 200 edits within an hour using Huggle on counter vandalism work. So be patient and you will find those edits needed via recent changes and articles on your watchlist. Cassiopeia talk 05:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Awesome! Thanks very much Cassiopeia, that's great encouragement. I will persevere. I'm based in Sydney, Australia, so I can work around the timezones. It's great to know how fast Huggle can make the process too. I am learning a lot and enjoying this process, so thank you again for your help. Cabrils (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

c I based in Sydney as well :). Huggle is an extremely great counter vandalism tool. Once you complete this program, then you can apply for the rollback right to install Huggle (and do mention my name and state your completion of the program link) so the admin would know as they might need to check the info you put fourth. Be safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 05:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi, I haven't finished yet but I have a few commitments coming up and probably won't be able to get back to this for a couple of weeks, so I thought I might let you know where I'm up to, in case you wanted to have a look at what I've done so far (and your feedback would be very appreciated, as it may help me finish the harder remaining examples). Thanks again Cabrils (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils OK Thanks for letting me know. I will review those questions which you have provided the answers. See you soon. Cassiopeia talk 04:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi, I have completed all but 1 of the assignments so I'm hoping you might be able to look at my answers now to see how I'm going? Also, a vandal posted the following on my Talk page-- what do you think I should do? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACabrils&diff=1155027106&oldid=1154982204. Thanks very much! Cabrils (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi, just a ping in case you missed this the other day, thank you. Cabrils (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils Pls see comment. Pls answer Q2 (you missed it) , Q16 to Q19. You can house the link with square brackets (open and close) instead leave the copy and paste the URL. see examples below - pls view in source edit mode.

Example 1 - just the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albufeira&diff=1152873762&oldid=1152873627

Example 2 - house the edit with square brackets [6]

Example 3 - brief info of the link (add square bracket and state brief info - note a space is needed after the last aphbehet of the URL before the brief info text) this edit

When you have done the above (reanswer) then ping me. Be safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 08:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi, Sorry for such a belated reply. I have completed everything except the 2 examples of test edits, which I am having real trouble finding. I am happy to be guided by you? Perhaps you would like to see my revised answers to the other answers? Thank you for your patience. Cabrils (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi, again, apologies for such a belated reply. I have completed the task and look forward to your review. Many thanks Cabrils (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi Cassiopeia, I trust you had a good break and are slowly catching up on everything. I completely understand how busy you will be with a backlog of tasks so there is of course no pressure on this, I am just pinging you here, per the note on your User page, to notify you that I have completed this assignment and look forward to your review, whenever you get to it. Much appreciated, Cabrils (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi Cassiopeia, no doubt you will be swamped with a backlog of work (and life)--this is just the politest of reminders for your assessment whenever you manage to get to it. Again, no rush, I'm just guarding against this being buried completely under your load of tasks. Thank you again. Cabrils (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils, I am so sorry. Thank you so much of reminding me. I was away (in the woods) for 7 to 8 weeks and have been back for 3 weeks now and still have not catched up with Wikipedia work even I have managed to gone through more than 800 watchlist/notifications/messages on my inbox and I still have another 300 to go through. Btw, "test edit" is the edit made by the new editor (usually their first or second edit) where by the editor made the edit for the purpose to see if the can actually make an edit in Wikipedia. So the normal edit we would see is that the editor would place "hi/hello/test/remove or add an alphabet or number" on their edit. It is not easy to find test edit without the use of counter vandalism tool (you can apply for the user right once you have completed this CVUA program - I will let you know how to do that) as the experienced counter vandalism editors would able to spot it first and revert the edit in additional place a test edit warning message on the editor talk page. This is the hardest assignment besides the final exam and the rest of the assignment is much more easy which I hope it is an encouragement for you :). Let me know if you questions about this assignment and or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Once again, my apologies for the delay. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 10:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, thank you so much! I really appreciate you spending time on this given how incredibly busy you are. I do hope you are managing all your tasks. Your comments all make sense and I am happy to progress to the next assignment, whenever you have time! Cabrils (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2023 (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:").

Cabrils, See assignment 4 above. No exercises for this assignment but only some reading material. Once you have done reading, pls let me know so I would post assignment 5 for you. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 01:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, thanks very much for such a prompt post, especially given your work load. I have read each of those templates, thank you, so I am happy to proceed whenever you have the time. Much appreciated, Cabrils (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users

Harassment and trolling

Occasionally, some vandals will not appreciate your good work and try to harass or troll you. In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, you should not engage with them and leave a note at WP:ANI. If they vandalise your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. Please read WP:DENY.

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Answer: Becasue if we acknowledge them and their actions, it encourages them. It's better to starve them of any response.

. 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. Cassiopeia talk 05:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Answer: Harrassment is usually a pattern of behaviour, and includes hounding and threats, which is very different from a good faith inquiry.

. Do note sometimes good faith editor do get upset when we reverted their edit and place a warning message and convey their message which might not be pleasant for your standard. Many times troll might not use personal attacks but being rude, condescending, put down, name calling and etc. To check on the editors past edits/talk page would help, and checking on their contribution log and talk page to see the behaviour of the editor to understand the nature of their edits especially when we could not tell if it is a disruptive edits or just being no knowing how to edits/know the guidelines. However, the bottom line is that "trolls want to annoy you and good faith editors annoyed at you and that is the subtle different." Cassiopeia talk 05:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Emergencies

I hope this never happens, but as you participate in counter-vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible that you may come across a threat of physical harm. In the past, we have had vandals submit death threats in Wikipedia articles, as well as possible suicide notes. The problem is, Wikipedia editors don't have the proper training to evaluate whether these threats are credible in most cases.

Fortunately, there's a guideline for cases like this. Please read Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm carefully and respond to the questions below.


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

Answer: The Wikimedia Foundation via email on emergency@wikimedia.org ; and also local emergency services if the threat is imminent. Include all details of the threat.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Answer: Remove any threats. Block the email and user from commenting. Consider applying revdel as well.

. Regardless is a real threat or seems like a threat, that decision is made by Foundation staff, all threats (including the above) are to be notified by email to emergencywikimedia.org or if email is enables in your user account simply click on Special:EmailUser/Emergency. Cassiopeia talk 05:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Sock pupperty

Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and answer the question below

What forms socks puppetry usually takes? and where to report it?

Answer: Generally misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts. Also:

Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address
Creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions
Using another person's account (piggybacking)
Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users
Persuading friends or colleagues to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)

To report sockpuppets: create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.

. Cassiopeia talk 05:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils Hi, see Assignment 5 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 01:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi, I'm sorry for my late reply, I missed your alert and just saw this today. Thanks very much and please see my answers when you get time. Cabrils (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi, this is just a ping in case you missed my previous one, but understand you are incredibly busy so may be prioritising your activities. Thank you Cabrils (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils Thank you for the re-ping. See comment above and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Cassiopeia talk 05:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thanks very much Cassiopeia, those are very helpful responses, I have a better understanding now. I am happy to proceed to the next assignment. Cabrils (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion

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

Protection

Please read the protection policy. Done

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

Answer: Pages that have been persistently vandalized by anonymous and registered users. Some highly visible templates and modules.

. Semi-protection applies to pages that constantly attract a large amount of vandalism. Cassiopeia talk 23:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: Where blatant vandalism, disruption, or abuse is occurring by multiple users and at a level of frequency that requires its use in order to stop it. unregistered or new editors (and any subsequent edits by anyone) are hidden from readers who are not logged in, until reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or admin. Logged-in editors see all edits, whether accepted or not.

also include register editors. The key is low volume vandalism but persistence over a period of time (a few days to a few weeks). Cassiopeia talk 23:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: Where a page experiences multi-party disputes and contentious content, including an ongoing edit war. may better suit multi-party disputes and contentious content, as it makes talk page consensus a requirement for implementation of requested edits. Only admins can edit pages with full protection.

. Full protection prevents anyone except administrators from editing the page.. This applies when there is serious disruption that cannot be addressed by using a lower level of protection or blocking the involved users, such as due to large scale edit warring or content disputes, or persistently being vandalized by users who have gamed the extended confirmed system. Cassiopeia talk 23:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: for pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. Such protection is case-sensitive.

.The creation of a page is "Salted" when editor(s) keep creating the same article with similar content when it is already been deleted when the article is clearly not notable. Cassiopeia talk

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

Answer: Protection should be used sparingly on the talk pages of blocked users, including IP addresses. Instead the user should be re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. When required, or when re-blocking without talk page editing allowed is unsuccessful, protection should be implemented for only a brief period not exceeding the duration of the block. Talk pages are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of vandalism. Protection can be applied if there is severe vandalism or abuse. Users whose talk pages are protected may wish to have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good-faith comments from users that the protection restricts editing from. A user's request to have their own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale by itself to protect the page, although requests can be considered if a reason is provided.

it is rare an article talk page is protect and when it does it is usually because of An Article talk page is rarely protected except in cases of extreme vandalism. User Talk pages are most often protected when they experience vandalism or abuse, usually from trolls or upset editors that have been reverted for performing vandalism on articles. Cassiopeia talk 23:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer i: Pending protection for Library_(computing): [Diff]

Answer ii: Pending protection for Knock_Shrine: [Diff]

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD. Done

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

Answer: for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible.

Pls read WP:CSD and list the criteria.

Answer again:

My revised answer: In cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages. Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Anyone can request speedy deletion by adding one of the speedy deletion templates, but only administrators may actually delete.

You need to read WP:CSD and the criteria is listed there under "General" section (G1 to G14 and A1 to A10). Cassiopeia talk 08:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Answer again.

My further revised answer: Sorry, I got confused because the question says "very briefly no need to go through the criteria".

Circumstances generally apply to articles, drafts, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, which are nonsense, test pages, vandalism, hoax pages etc (G1 to G14).

And specifically to Articles that have no context, are in a foreign language (not English), have no content etc, (A1-A11).

Cabrils Ok you get where to find the WP:CSD, so pls list them and do your best to state them in you own words (G1-G14 and A1-A11). Thank you.

Answer again:

Cassiopeia Thanks for your continued guidance. My second further revised answer:

G1 - criterion applies to any page with incoherent text and meaningless writing.

G2 - test pages (test editing or other Wiki functions)

G3 - blatant and obvious vandalism and hoaxes hoaxes

G4 - recreation of a page deleted already via its most recent deletion discussion (including pages that are sufficiently identical copies, and title)

G5 - pages created by banned or blocked users (and their sockpuppets) and general sanctions

G6 - technical deletions, uncontroversial maintenance

G7 - where the author of a page requests it be deleted (and the substantial content of that page is by that author)

G8 - pages that rely on other pages that have since been deleted or didn't exist (eg a Talk page that doesn't have a main page)

G9 - Wiki Foundation office actions (rarely done but can speedy delete pages)

G10 - attack pages: obvious harassment, defamation, entirely negative bio pages etc

G11 - exclusively advertising and promotional pages (if subject is notable then preferable to re-write page instead of delete)

G12 - clear breaches of copyrighted material, but if possible retain earlier version of page that doesn't contain the breach

G13 - drafts/articles for creation that have not been revised for 6+ months

G14 - Unnecessary disambiguation pages

. Cassiopeia talk 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Cabrils. Reviewed. Cassiopeia talk 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

A1 - applies to articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article

A2 - non-English articles (including from foreign Wikis)

A3 - pages without content but only contain external links (including "See also"), questions, noticeboard-type posts, frameworks for an article

A4-A6 NO LONGER EXIST

A7 - pages (people, animals, organizations, web content, events) that don't explain why the subject is significant (which is a lower standard than notable), except for educational institutions. If page's credibility is unclear, try to improve the article, or propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

A8 - NO LONGER EXISTS

A9 - Musical recordings where the page does not explain why they are significant (lower standard than notable): eg where the artist/s does not have a page

A10 - recently created article which effectively duplicates an existing page and does not expand upon, detail or improve information

A11 - subjects clearly invented by the author

. Cassiopeia talk 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Cabrils. Reviewed. Cassiopeia talk 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

2. Correctly tag four pages for speedy deletion (1 promo, 1 copyvio and 2 can be for any of the criteria) and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below. For COPYVIO pls check the text vs the source by using Earwig Copy detector

Answer i: Promo: Diff. Db-promo. G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion

. Cassiopeia talk 23:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Answer ii: COPYVIO: Diff. G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement

. Cassiopeia talk 23:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Answer iii: Diff. Db-person: A7. No indication of importance (people)

. Cassiopeia talk 23:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

ALSO Diff. Db-person: A7. No indication of importance (people)

. Cassiopeia talk 23:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Answer iv: Diff. Db-a7: A7. No indication of importance

Pls see HERE].

Revised answer: |Diff. DB-corp: A7. No indication of importance.

I can not see the hist log as it was AfD and the article was deleted - see here and here.Do need to again again. Cassiopeia talk 22:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia: my new answer (I'm tagging you here in case the Diff proceeds quickly and the page, Mr_Scott_(Gucci_Icecream), is deleted): Diff: Db-promo

. Cassiopeia talk 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Cabrils. Reviewed. Cassiopeia talk 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

ALSO (just in case): Diff] : Db-a1: No context

Cabrils (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Cabrils. You place the CSD in the talk page instead of the article page. The article you selected was redirected. Cassiopeia talk 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Cabrils, See Assignment 6 above. Cassiopeia talk 03:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, Hello, thanks for your thanks, letting me know you are aware of my recent edits. You will see I have completed the basic questions, but I am a bit overwhelmed with the substantive tasks of finding pages that require protection and speedy deletion. I have rarely discovered such pages in my editing career. I will do my best to try to find some but if you have any suggestions about how to efficiently identify such pages, your guidance would be much appreciated?? I am going through the lists of [ewusers&user=&offset=20231005214921%7C153186431| New Editors] but this doesn't feel very productive. I've also tried to think of possibly controversial pages that might require protection but that is similarly inefficient (eg Donald Trump)?? Thank you in advance. Cabrils (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils, hi, protection on articles usually happen in article which the subject is popular or at time controversial or certain group of editors claimed subject of their ethnicity as the subject citizenship (example a subject who's parents are Serbians but the subject was born and raised in Austria and editors keep on changing the citizen to Serbian where by his citizenship of Serbia is not in the body texts and no independent, reliable source stated the claim), As for Donald Triump article it is already protected as you can see the protection icon on top right of the page - see the icon and protection definition and levels here. One way of finding vandalism by multiple editors where by the pages need protection are something have happened to the subject or certain subjects actions cause social media attentions, such as movie stars divorce announcements, die /accidents / cheatings. Other would be a live event where by subject change the results of a sport games or place live stream promotion URL (happen a lot on UFC PPV events). Hope this help. Finally, place watchlist of certain pages that you are familiar with and you can find pattern if the pages are being vandalized a lot by "multiple editors" and a protection can be requested. Hope this help. Cassiopeia talk 23:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, thanks very much, that's a big help. I will be in touch. Cabrils (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, hello. I'm just touching base. I've been very slow completing this task so my apologies for this. I have almost finished the assignment except for a COPYVIO and 2 page protection requests, which I am having a lot of trouble finding, but will continue seeking. I hope this is OK and appreciate your patience. Cabrils (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Cabrils,For COPYVIO use Earwig's Copyvio Detector and check for either New page or article for creation and filter for unreview article - see here. Note: highter percentage of COPYVIO in Earwig does not mean copyvio when the copyvio is based on proper nouns, document names, person names, refs, and etc but copyvio on body texts. As for page protection, check pages that the subject (especially controversial persons) when something happen to them or they said/did something which results in breaking news or event that ip editors does not agree with the results or does not like some of the participants/sportmen/fighters etc for exampl check UFC 296- event held on Dec 16, controversial fighters Colby Covington, Ian Machado Garry (page protection expires on Dec 25). Copyvio is easy to find, page protection needs time (note: pages that have low volume but persistence being vandalized in days or weeks can also be reported - such as editors change the subject nationality which they associate the subject ethnicity as their nationality such as fighters Aleksandar Rakić who was born in Austria but with Serbian parents which his page has been consistently vandalised (change his nationality from Austrian to Serbian) and Nasrat Haqparast who was born in Germany with Afghan parents and editors kept on changing his nationality from German to Afghan. You can "set those page of such in your watchlist" so when editors make changes you will be notified. Once you can find the copyvio I will review your assignment and move on to the next assignement and you can notify me when you find the pages to protect. Be save and best. Cassiopeia talk 02:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, thank you VERY much, again, for such a prompt and helpful reply! I will be in touch! Cabrils (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I've found and tagged a COPYVIO, so I look forward to your review. (I will continue to look for page protection articles). Cabrils (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, Hi, Happy New Year. This is just a follow up ping, that I have completed the exercises (except for the couple of page protection questions, which I am still looking for, as you suggested above. Cabrils (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Cabrils, See comments above. I am ok for your to proceed to next assignment but you need to answer Q6 and pls let me know when you have found, report and the articles are protected (provide all links) and answer again for "Speedy deletion Q1. Ping when you have done them. Pls read the "Notes" Section below. Cassiopeia talk 23:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Cabrils, Pls see previous message on this assignment (6) - speedy deletion Question 1 and for page protection pls see "Elections and referendums in Germany" table at the very bottom of and 1949 West German federal election page and click "show" on the right side to view. Articles from 1949 to 2021 have been heavily vandalized by sock and meat sock for the last 10 days and all those said articles have been protected for next few days to a week. The sock is using different IP address to vandalize the pages so I believe they will be back once the protection is lifted. They usually start vandalized the page around 2-4pm Eastern Australia Time (I dont know your time zone so I give you mine), if you can and are available during those time, then I suggest you to (1) book mark all those pages on your watchlist (2) Monitor pages during that time via Wikipedia:RedWarn counter vandalism tool. Pls reply when you have read this message. Cassiopeia talk 10:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thank you for this huge help! I am looking into this now. Cabrils (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi! I am so pleased to be able to provide my answer to Q6 Page Protection. Please see my answers above and THANK YOU for you incredible patience! Cabrils (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Cabrils, I have reveiwed Assignment 6 - Protection. See the comments. Cassiopeia talk 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Notes

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

G12 (copyvio) -

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

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

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

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

1. Audi infringed copyright violation over Eminem’s song “Lose Yourself” in their commercial advertising. [7]

2. Audi was fined US $ 965,000 over copyright infringement for using 10 words from Brian Andreas’s story of “Angel of Mercy” - [8]

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

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

Usernames

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

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

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

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

DJohnson

Answer: Probably OK, no action required. Although it's not recommended to use real names for privacy reasons, it is not "inappropriate", it doesn't break any rules. Not misleading, promotional etc.

. Unless user doesnt impersonate any known subject, it is not violating the guidelines then do nothing. Cassiopeia talk 23:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

LMedicalCentre

Answer: Promotional username. This is an inappropriate name because it unambiguously represents the name of a company, and is promotional, so it is not permitted. It also implies shared use, so is not permitted for that either. Action: I would talk to the user and explain the policy breaches and suggest they create a new account with a different username (and I could use the {{subst:uw-username}}, {{subst:uw-uall}} or {{subst:uw-coi-username}} template for this). .

. This breaches of promotional usernames and should be reported to WP:UAA if they makes medical centre page in a promotional way. If they were making innocent edits they should be advised just to change the username using {{subst:Uw-username|Reason}}. Cassiopeia talk 09:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Fuqudik

Answer: Offensive username that is blatantly profane, so it breaches "Disruptive or offensive usernames" policy. This account should be immediately blocked by admin upon discovery. I would report it to report it to "Usernames for administrator attention". No warning to the user required.

. report it to WP:UAA. Cassiopeia talk 09:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

ColesStaff

Answer: Implies shared use, so is not permitted. Action: I would talk to the user and explain the policy breaches and suggest they create a new account with a different username (and I could use the {{subst:uw-username}}, {{subst:uw-uall}} or {{subst:uw-coi-username}} template for this).

Write to the user and brief him/her about Wikipedia username policy and advise him/her to change the username should the user edits are constructive and not violate NPV. (b)If the user edits is aimed to advertise and promote Coles then report it to WP:UAA.Cabrils (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Answer: Although usernames in non-Latin script are permitted, I think this one could interfere with the project because "~ ~ ~ ~" is used to sign posts, so I would talk to the user and explain the issue and suggest they create a new account with a different username (and I could use the {{subst:uw-username}}, {{subst:uw-uall}} or {{subst:uw-coi-username}} template for this).

. Nowadays, these types of usernames are automatically disallowed, so you won't stumble across them.Cabrils (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

172.295.64.27

Answer: Maybe do nothing, but it could be misleading in that it implies that this is the user's IP address, and if it isn't that would be misleading and breach the policy. If it is the user's IP address then it's not misleading, but it is revealing of the user's privacy. So I would probably talk to the user and explain the potential policy breach, and the confusion issue of using an IP address, and suggest they create a new account with a different username (and I could use the {{subst:uw-username}}, {{subst:uw-uall}} or {{subst:uw-coi-username}} template for this).

. Nowadays, these types of usernames are automatically disallowed, so you won't stumble across them. Cassiopeiatalk 23:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Bieberisgay

Answer: Offensive username that is blatantly profane, so it breaches "Disruptive or offensive usernames" policy. This account should be immediately blocked by admin upon discovery. I would report it to report it to "Usernames for administrator attention". No warning to the user required.

. report it to WP:UAA. Cassiopeia>talk<23:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

<

Cabrils, Pls see assignment 7 above. Cassiopeiatalk 23:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia</nowiki>, hello and I hope you are well. My apologies for such a late response. I have had some personal issues this year that has made contributing to Wikipedia very difficult, but I am hoping to be able to start helping soon.

I have answered the Assignment 7 questions on Usernames.

Re Assignment 6: In Protection I still have to answer Q6. And in Speedy Deletion I have answered Q1.

Thank you.Cabrils (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, Hello again. Just a ping in case this slipped through a gap in your busy schedule. Thanks again. Cabrils (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, Hi again. Just a ping given your busy schedule. Thanks again. Cabrils (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Cabrils, Sorry, didn't see your ping. will check on the assignment this weekend. Hope all is good with you. Be safe and best. Cassiopeia talk< 01:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, Trust you are well too. Thanks very much, no worries at all, grateful for your time.Cabrils (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Cabrils, Reviewed. Sorry for the wait. My apologies. Pls note that you need to answer 2 questions for the previous assignment "Protection and speedy deletion" - Question 6 under "Protection" (nominated 2 articles for protection and the pages are protected) and Question 1 under "Speedy deletion" I have provided you with examples and you just answer the rest accordingly. For article protection, the articles can be protected as long as it is mass vandalized by editor on the same day or stretching a week to few weeks period. I suggest you to watch (under your watch list by clicking the start icon of the article) some articles in advance which you think it might be having mass vandalism by IP editors such as UFC 306 which will be lived on next Saturday (US) or any breaking news / internet meme for certain celebrity/sportspersons. (when you graduate from CVUA then you can apply for "Huggle" tool and it is a lot easier to spot mass vandalism of any article). Pls note that know how to apply article for protection and the article protected is important as it is not only part of requirement of the program but it will be one of the answer for the final exam. Pls let me know when you have answer them. I will post the next assignment for you. You have come a long way, only a few more assignment to go and you will complete the program. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeiatalk 23:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, thank you so much. That's all a huge help and very much appreciated. Cabrils (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Cabrils, Btw, if you add your email address on your "preference" under "email option" and tick "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed" then everytime when the page that under your watchlist is edited, the system will send you a notification via email. You can always uncheck the watchlist (the star icon on top of the article anytime you want). To find your "preference page click on the "black human icon" on top of the top right corner. Hope this will help you to find vandalized articles that require for page protection. Cassiopeiatalk 09:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, thanks for the helpful advice! Cabrils (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2024 (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 3 scenarios 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

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

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

Answer: Vandalism: because it is abuse/attack: Adding "irrelevant [[Wikipedia:Offensive material|obscenities or crude humor]] to a page" (see '''WP:VANDAL'''). (Incidentally also breaches [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]])

Well-done! Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

ii) Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

Answer: WP:VANDAL: "adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page"; WP:BLPSTYLE: do not "label people with contentious labels"; WP:BLPREMOVE: "potentially defamatory material"; WP:WIAPA: "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors."

. It is basically vandal against BLP. Any unsourced content can be removed. For articles' content, that would be a vandalism act. If the edit is on a talk page and directed toward another editor, then that is a personal attack so WP:WIAPA does not apply here. Kindly nested the Wikipedia guide

lines with double square bracket instead bold them. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

iii) What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?

Answer: subst:uw-vandalism2|PageName

. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

iv) 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?

Answer: No- WP:3RR allows editors to revert an edit up to 3 times in 24 hours.

. While 3RR allow an editor to revert up to 3 times in 24 hours for the same article, that is only apply to "non-vandalism" edits. An editor can allow to revert more than 3 times/many times if those edits the editor reverted are considered blatantly vandalism. So be careful not revert disruptive edits or unsourced edits and etc. more than 3 times within 24 hours on the same page for you would be blocked. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

v) Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}}?

Answer: IPvandal because the editor is an IP address (I would actually use {{Vandal|Example user or IP}} )

. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

vi) What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?

Answer: IP editor has added clearly abusive content that I have reverted 3 times in 24 hours.

. violation of 3RR is considered edit warrings. Hence here the editor's edits are considered vandalism, we stated "vandalism" in the report. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Scenario 2

You see a new account called "Hi999" that has added random letters to one article.

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

Answer: Even though edit is not offensive/abusive, it is "editing (or other behavior) [that is] deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" so it should be considered vandalism.

. Since the editor is new and if it is their first or second edit, it could be a test and WP:VD tells us that this is not vandalism. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

ii) What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?

Answer: subst:uw-vandalism2|PageName

. It should be {{subst:uw-test1}}, used for test edits. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

iii) Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?

Answer: Rollback (Blue)--the edits are not just in good faith (which would warrant Rollback (Green)); but possibly only a test, so in this instance probably Rollback (Blue).

Rollback-AGF. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

iv) 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?

Answer: YES, report. WP:AIV: they have been given sufficient warnings, and their actions are more destructive than an "innocent" test edit.

. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

v) If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?

Answer: Not immediately. Indefinite blocking is for accounts that repeatedly vandalise over a long period of time: see WP:WARNVAND. A temporal block would be more appropriate.

it it is widespread (not only one article but many articles) and in short period of time frame, then it will indef block. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

vi) Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}}?

Answer: {vandal} because the editor has created a Userpage.

Since the editor is a registered user. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

vii) What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?

Answer: "Editor has made repeated disruptive/abusive edits and been sufficiently warned. Seems likely to continue vandalism"

. "vandalism after final warning; (if applicable) vandalism-only account," since the account has vandalized after a level 4 warning and may have only made vandalism edits." and provide hist diff on the report. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 3 November 2024 (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. i) Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option would you use?

Answer: Yes, revert using "Rollback (Red) vandalism".

. And leave an edit summary explaining that the revert was for spam. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

ii) If you do revert which warning template would you use?

Answer: Revert using "Rollback (Red) vandalism".

.Red the question again. Should be {{subst:uw-spam1}}, which is used for inappropriate external links. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

iii) Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?

Answer: Yes: "Db-g11" unambiguous promotion

. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

iv) Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?

Answer: Yes. "subst:uw-advert2"

. Also {{subst:uw-coi-username|Laptops Inc}}, since their username suggests a clear conflict of interest with Laptops Inc, which they have created an article on. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

v) Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?

Answer: Yes: #3: Promotional name: "unambiguously represents the name of a company"

. For being a promotional username with promotional edits per WP:PROMONAME, and, as such, is a blatant violation of WP:UN and should be brought to WP:UAA. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Cabrils, See Assignment 8 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 23:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thank you! Cabrils (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Please see my answers above, thank you. Cabrils (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hello, just a ping in case you didn't see my previous note. I have completed this assignment, please see my answers above.

Plerase note I am still regularly searching for pages to protect, as I still need to complete Q6 in the Protection section above.

Thank you. Cabrils (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Cabrils. Sorry, will review later today. Cassiopeia talk 22:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Cabrils Pls read the comment carefully especially on 3RR, new editor (test edit). Let me know if you need me to clarify further. There is one more very short assignment after this then a 7 day monitoring period of your edits on vandalism topics before the final exam. You are almost there. Let me know if you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, thank you very much for this, I will peruse and be in touch. Much appreciated, Cabrils (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, your explanations were very helpful around 3RR, thanks. Thanks also for the encouragement, much appreciated. I feel happy to move on to the next assignment. Cabrils (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2024 (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.

Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.

Answer (when to use):

to remove problematic consecutive edits back to the most recent edit by a different editor

To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear

To revert edits in your own userspace

To revert edits that you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made)

To revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban (but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to)

To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page

> Cassiopeia talk 02:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Answer (when not to use) :

When the edit you want to undo is NOT the most recent edit to the page
If you only want to undo some, not all, consecutive edits
If you want to restore the page to a particular, specific edit.
If all the edits to a page are by a single editor
If you want to see a preview of how the page will look after the rollback
If you want to include an edit summary
to remove good-faith edits which you happen to disagree with

> Cassiopeia talk 02:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?

Answer:

Revert your edit manually, with an edit summary like "Self-revert accidental use of rollback".

> Cassiopeia talk 02:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?

Answer:

No: rollback link does not provide an option to provide a custom edit summary. When in doubt, use another method of reversion, supply a custom edit summary to explain your reasoning, or start a discussion on the talk page.

> Cassiopeia talk 02:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Cabrils See assignment 9 above. Cassiopeia talk 01:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thanks again very much for your prompt response. Please see my answers above. Cabrils (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Cabrils. Reviewed. Cassiopeia talk 02:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thank you! I will continue doing counter vandalism patrolling, and assume I will hear from you later next week about what the exam entails. Do I need to sit it at a particular time?? Cabrils (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2024 (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.

Cabrils, Greeting. The next phase of this course is Assignment 10 - "monitoring period", see above. Cheers. Pls make about 30 counter vandalism edits so I may check (note: pls do not have a lot of vandalism edits as I could not check them all if you have hundred of counter vandalism edits). Final exam will follows after the monitoring period. Do raise any questions if you have any. (I just notice you are a Sydneysider; So am I :)). Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 02:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thank you! Understood. I have been doing a lot of vandal patrolling this week, but I will only do about 30 edits this afternoon, as you request, so that you don't get overloaded with having to check too many!

Yes I am in Sydney too! Small world...!

Your help and training has been first class, thanks very much. Cabrils (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Cabrils, I meant 30 edits for the next seven days. (1 week monitory period). Cassiopeia talk 02:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Understood, thank you. Cabrils (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Hi, just touching base as I'm wanting to do some editing but have refrained because you asked me to limit my activity? No doubt you would be overloaded with tasks, but would it still Ok if I did some more editing? Thank you in advance Cabrils (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi , I don't have land line / no Internet for the last few days due to iso or problems with the cables as where I am living always have this problems consequently days of raining. So nice can't check anything right now. I will do the review when we have the Internet. At the mean time, go ahead to do the counter vandalism work for I will look at the edit for only 7 days from the monitoring assignment date. Sorry about the inconvenient. Cassiopeia talk 02:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Cabrils Your 7 day monitoring period has shown no major issues. See below the final exam questions. All the best. Cassiopeia talk 04:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Oh no! That sounds terrible. Thanks very much for such a prompt response given the circumstances. Thanks very much for all your help and guidance, it's been in valuable. I will do my best with the exam. With much appreciation, Cabrils (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Ppending page protection - (low volume but consistent over a period of time (days to weeks) that means you need to check the articles's history log page
(3RR) - Do note you need to warn the involved editor on their talk pages first after the have made their 3 revert on the same article within 24 hour which deemed edit warring with another involved editor(s). If the any of the involved makes the 4th revert then you can report them. When reporting you need to provide the hist diffs and some reason.
For (copyvio) - you can check on the New Pages Feed) and look for articles in either New Page Patrol or Article for Creation. Use [https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ Earwig's Copyvio Detector to see if the articles violate copyvio (make sure only report if the copyvio percentage is high and the content is NOT taken from public domain (free to use) sites. So you need to check if the sites are copyright). All proper nouns, document, event name and etc are not considered copyvio. Between New Page Patrol or Article for Creation, you can find much higher changes of articles violate copyvio in Article for Creation section.

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 'sfjiweripw' into an article. What would you do if it was their first warning? What about after that.

Answer 1: Vandalism. If it was their first disruptive edit I would warn them with the tag {{</nowiki>subst:uw-disruptive1}}.

If it is their first edit, we would considered a test edit, unless this is not their first edit then it is a vandalism edit.

Answer 2: If they continued to make more disruptive edits, I would escalate the warnings to uw-disruptive2, uw-disruptive3, uw-generice4. If they continued after the 4th warning I would report to admins at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

or vandalism 1, vandalism 2 and etc. Cassiopeia talk

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

Answer 3: Probably still a good faith mistake, the editor may not have seen the first warning. The first warning ({{tl|Uw-articlesig}}) is a single level warning, so I would give them another warning {{subst:Template:Uw-articlesig}} .

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Answer 4: If they kept doing it after that (so this would be their third or more time), I would consider it disruptive and give them {{subst:uw-disruptive1}} or {{subst:uw-disruptive2}}.

or andalism 2 and etc. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

5 & 6. A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?

Answer 5: The first time I would consider it disruptive and give them {{subst:uw-disruptive1}}.

. It is more toward NPOV. So uw-npov1 can be given.

Answer 6: If they continued to make more similar disruptive edits, I would escalate the warnings to uw-disruptive2, uw-disruptive3, uw-generic4. If they continued after the 4th warning I would report to admins at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

. or npov-2 and etc. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

7 & 8. A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?

Answer 7: The first time I would consider it a test, so I would tag with {{subst:uw-test1}}

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Answer 8: If they continued to make more similar test edits, I would escalate the warnings to uw-test2, uw-test3, uw-vandalism4. If they continued after the 4th warning I would report to admins at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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: First time: I would consider it good faith, but revert the edit and provide an Edit Summary like "Assume good faith edit, but sourced information cannot be summarily deleted without good reason". :{{tick}} always check the source to verify if the information is correct or not. If the info not as per source then leave the edit alone, if not warn with {{subst:uw-delete1}}.~~~~ '''Answer 10:''' <nowiki> After that, I would no longer consider the deletions to be good faith and would tag with escalate the warning/s with would consider it inappropriate behaviour and tag with {{subst:uw-delete1<nowiki>}}, and if such behaviour continued, I would escalate the warnings as required ({{subst:uw-delete2<nowiki>}} etc).

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Answer 11: If the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions, I would create a section on either their Talk page or the Talk page of the article, notify them that their editing was problematic (eg "deleting sourced information from an article without good reason breaches the guidelines" etc) and ask them to clarify their position, so I would basically engage with them to discuss the issue and explain their reasoning.

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

12. An IP user removes unsourced article, what would you do?

Answer 12: Assume good faith, but revert their deletion, and tag the article with {Unreferenced}. If the IP editor had a history of positive contributions, I possibly would also post a new section their Talk page (I would probably need to create a Talk page for them if they are an IP editor) and explain why I had reverted their deletion.

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Answer 13: Assume good faith, read and consider what the deleted material is, and if it is not extremely clear to me that the material is "not relevant", revert the edit and write in the Edit Summary something like "An editor's subjective opinion about what is relevant is not a valid reason to remove otherwise appropriately sourced material--rather, please discuss on the Talk page".

. check whether or not the content is actually relevant to the article. If so, warn them with the appropriate level of

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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 14: Per WP:SUICIDE contact the Emergency Team at emergency@wikimedia.org

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: This would be considered harassment (per WP:HA), and should be dealt with per WP:DWH as a threat of harm per WP:EMERGENCY and I would contact the Emergency Team at emergency@wikimedia.org .

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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 Cheesecake

Answer: Warn editor with {{subst:uw-blank1}}

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

2. A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jete

Answer: Warn editor with {{subst:uw-attempt1}}

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Answer: Warn editor with {{subst:uw-attempt1}}

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

4. A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport

Answer: Blatant vandalism: Warn editor with {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

5. A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.

Answer: Warn editor with {{subst:uw-delete1}}

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

Answer: Warn editor with {{subst:uw-disruptive1}}

could be a test edit if the edit is their first edit. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

7. A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.

Answer: Warn editor with {{subst:uw-disruptive1}}

. or vandalism edit. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

8. A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.

Answer: Assume good faith but revert and include an Edit Summary like "Potentially defamatory statements require care per WP:BLP and must be sourced"

. if there is no source to support the, we will treat it as vandalism. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{subst:uw-delete4}}

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Answer: Blatant vandalism. Revert and report to Admins at WP:AIV.

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Answer: Revert, warn with {{subst:uw-delete4}} and report to Admins at WP:AIV.

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Answer: Assume good faith, test edit, revert.

. It is not a good faith edit. Add

Hello! Your image was inserted successfully but because it appeared to be irrelevant to the article or violated the image use policy, it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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: Revert, warn with {{subst:uw-delete3}} and report to Admins at WP:AIV. This would qualify as a personal attack per WP:NPA.

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

14. A user adds "Italic text to Sydney

Answer: Assume good faith/ test edit, revert.

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

15. A user adds "he loves dick" to Chris Hemsworth

Answer: Blatant vandalism. Warn with {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: {{Db-g11}} or {{Db-promo}} or {{Db-spam}}

:Y. Cassiopeia  talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

Answer: No indication of importance: {{Db-person}}

. A7. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

3. Joe goes to England and comes home !

Answer: No context: {{Db-a1}} or {{Db-nocontext}}

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Answer: Obvious hoax: {{Db-hoax}}

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

5. Fuck Wiki!

Answer: Either attack page ({{Db-g10}} / {{Db-attack}}

. or G3 (vandalism). Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

What would you do in the following circumstance:

6. A user blanks a page they very recently created

Answer: I wouldn't do anything if this was in the first few minutes after a new article is created (per [[WP:A3]]. If the user hasn't performed any new edits after about an hour, then assume they want the page deleted so tag with {{Db-a3}} / {{Db-nocontent}}.

{{tick}] G7 would be be more appropriate. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Answer: Revert the edit and warn author {{subst:uw-speedy1}}.

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Answer: First time: Revert and warn user {{subst:uw-afd1}}. Times after that: revert and increase warning level eg {{subst:uw-afd2}}, {{subst:uw-afd3}} etc

. and restored the afd tag. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{Db-g13}} / {{Db-afc}} / {{db-blankdraft}}

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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: This unambiguously represents the name of a band so is considered promotional so it violates the username policy: WP:ORGNAME. I would assume good faith and politely draw the user's attention to this policy, and try to encourage them to create a new account with a different username, and use {{subst:uw-coi-username}} template for this.

. If the editor edits about an article "The Main Street Band" then report the editor to WP:UAA.

2. Poopbubbles

Answer: This would be considered offensive and profane and likely offend users so it violates username policy: WP:DISRUPTNAME. Per WP:DISRUPTNAME I would report to WP:Usernames for administrator attention.

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

3. Brian's Bot

Answer: This could be easily misunderstood to refer to a "bot" so it violates username policy: WP:MISLEADNAME I would assume good faith and politely draw the user's attention to this policy, and try to encourage them to create a new account with a different username, and use {{subst:uw-botun}} template for this.

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

Answer: This would be a confusing username per WP:UNCONF, so it should be discouraged because it is extremely lengthy and prone to confusion and misspelling. I would politely draw the user's attention to this policy, and try to encourage them to create a new account with a different username, and use {{subst:uw-username|Reason}} or {{subst:uw-uall}} template for this. I would also watch this account because confusing usernames can often be a red flag for other problems.

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

5. Bobsysop

Answer: This username gives the impression that the account has permissions that it does not have ("sysop") so violates WP:MISLEADNAME. I would assume good faith and politely draw the user's attention to this policy, and try to encourage them to create a new account with a different username, and use {{subst:uw-username|Reason}} or {{subst:uw-uall}} template for this.

. We also can just report them to UAA.. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

6. 12, 23 June 2012

Answer: I think this could be a confusing username because it is a date, so could violate WP:UNCONF. I would politely draw the user's attention to this policy, and try to encourage them to create a new account with a different username, and use {{subst:uw-username|Reason}} or {{subst:uw-uall}} template for this.

. We also can just report them to UAA. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

7. PMiller

Answer: This appears to be a real name, so could be a violation of someone impersonating a real person (WP:REALNAME). I would politely draw the user's attention to this policy, and try to encourage them to create a new account with a different username, and use {{subst:uw-username|Reason}}, {{subst:uw-uall}} or {{subst:uw-coi-username}} template for this.

. unless there is a clearly identifiable person with the name "P. Miller", this isn't impersonating anyone. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

8. OfficialJustinBieber

Answer: This is highly likely someone impersonating Justin Bieber, a real person, so is a violation of WP:REALNAME, so is a blatant violation. I would report to WP:Usernames for administrator attention.

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

9. The Dark Lord of Wiki

Answer: It's probably OK-- I don't think it breaches WP:MISLEADNAME (in implying that it is an official Wikipedia Administrator or similar account). No action necessary.

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

10. I love you

Answer: Does not seem to violate any policy (including WP:UNCONF). No action necessary.

. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Part 5 (20%)

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: Absolutely it's possible but edit warring should be avoided because it's unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers: WP:EW. It is most obviously evidenced by the WP:3RR. It could occur where we revert vandalism and the vandal repeatedly reverts our revert.

. The 3RR does not apply to obvious vandalism. However, if it's not obvious, or borderline, you should be careful when reverting for you will be blocked before you have violated the 3RR (I have seen so many times such incident occur. So stop at the 3rd revert). Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Answer: Report the user to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Such accounts can be reported using Twinkle ('ARV' link).

. State "vandalism-only accounts" when reporting to AIV. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

Answer: Abuse (harassment or personal attacks) is dealt with under WP:PA and WP:DR, and is reported using the {{RPA}} template . Could also leave a report at WP:ANI.

. notifying editor if ANI is reproted. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Answer: Report to 'Usernames for administrator attention' at WP:UAA.

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

Answer: Abuse (harassment or personal attacks) is dealt with under WP:PA and WP:DR, and is reported using the {{RPA}} template .

. WP:ANI with the details of the attacks. If they have been vandalizing, WP:AIV. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Answer: If the edit warring user(s) appear unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a {{subst:uw-ewsoft}}, {{subst:uw-ew}}, or {{subst:uw-3rr}} template message on their user talk page. If a user fails to cease edit warring, refuses to work collaboratively or heeds the information given to them, or does not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then make a request for administrative involvement by adding a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.