User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Giraffer

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/Giraffer.

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.

Yes I have enabled twinkle from the preference. I will read thoroughly.

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 one that is intended to make a positive change to an article, but due to a lack of understanding of policy (or grammar), is undone. Examples of these can include the addition of unsourced content or the addition of sourced but incorrectly formatted content.

Vandalism are edits which are intended to cause harm to the encyclopedia. Examples of these include the addition of intentionally defamatory content, profanity, or unexplained blanking.

. The key here is "intention". If an editor intends to help Wikipedia, and the edit is considered disruptive, they are still considered a "good faith" editor especially the new editor does not aware their edits are disruptive. Vandalism is a "deliberate attempt" to harm Wikipedia. Editor might edit adds incorrect or unsourced information and this does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal; the key is their "intention". Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Good faith

Answer:

(1)

[1]

Yes it is a god faith edit but we dont revert the content because of copyedit (Very bad grammar), instead we improve the content. However, since the content is unsourced, we can removed the unsourced content as content need to be verified by independent, reliable source - see WP:PROVEIT. Cassiopeia^(talk)

(2)

[2]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(3)

[3]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(4)

[4] - Wikipedia is not a travel guide

it is a good faith guidelines but unsourced. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

(5)

[5] - Bad grammar and over-complicating the list (not sure if I should rev tho) Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

(6)

[6] - Wikipedia is not a how-to Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Answer:

(1)

[7]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(2)

[8]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(3)

[9]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer Good day. Any question regrading the assignment, please let me know here. For other questions not relating to the assignments, ping me on the talk page of this subpage Here. See above the first assignment. Pls provide "all" hist diffs (revert diff, report diff, deletion diff, talk page diff and etc.) on your assignment Welcome to CVUA. Ping me here when you are done and ready for review. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have finished. Giraffer (stay home) 07:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer See comments above. Pls provide 3 more additional answer for good faith edits (4-6) (besides unsourced/unreferenced). When you have finished, pls ping me. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have finished again with different examples (not just unreferenced), and added explainations. Regards, Giraffer (munch) 08:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer good faith edits but unhelpful edits - examples grammar mistakes, tables formatting, any edits that do not adhere to WP:MOS guard lines and etc. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move to next assignment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I am ready to move on. Giraffer (munch) 12:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

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

Please answer the following questions

(1) Why do we warn users?

Answer: We warn users to notify them of the issue they have caused, so they know to correct it. If they are acting in good faith, this serves as a piece of guidance to prevent them from doing it again, however if they are not acting in good faith, it serves as a warning to stop.

. 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) 08:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: In extremely severe cases where there is malicious intent. For instance, the only 4im warning I have given was to a person who recently blanked the Black Lives Matter article and replaced it with 'f*cking n*ggers complaining'. In this example, there is a clear intent to harm the encyclopedia, Furthermore, not only is it vandalism, but it is an intentionally offensive and rude remark towards a very controversial topic.

. Pls provide hist diff next time. 4im is only for widespread and particularly egregious vandalism such as vandalism only account and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: You should substitute a warning template on a user's talk page. Since I use Twinkle, it automatically substitutes the template for me, and in the event that I reached the user's talk page through an edit of theirs, links it back to that edit.

. It is always a good idea to substitute a template while placing it on a user's talk page in order to prevent changes on template message when changes to template documentation are made. For example, if an unsubstituted warning template gets vandalized, all talk pages containing the template will reflect the recent changes. It can mislead new users as well as the patrollers. The format for substitution is {{subst:<template>}}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: I would report them to AIV and any other appropriate channels (such as revdel for doxxing).

report to AIV. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:05, 23 July 2020 (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-advert1}} - Used for someone who is advertising in an article (usually for someone's first time, unless it is a shared IP in which I only use it if it is the first time in a while)

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: {{subst:uw-delete2}} - Used as a second warning for someone who has removed content from an article without explaining why.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: {{subst:uw-npov4}} - Used as a final warning for someone who has repeatedly added their opinions to articles.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, I have finished but the {{Tlsubst|warning}} doesn't seem to work on this page... Regards, Giraffer (munch)

Giraffer Use {{subst:uw-advert1}} (see above). Let me know if have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I think I am ready to move on. Thanks, Giraffer (munch) 08:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Tools

Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#Tools includes a list of tools and resources for those who want to fight vandalism with a more systematic and efficient approach.

What you have been doing so far is named the old school approach. As well as manually going through Special:RecentChanges, it includes undos, "last clean version" restores, and manually warning users.

There are a large number of tool which assist users in the fight against vandalism. They range from tools which help filter and detect vandalism to tools which will revert, warn and report users.

Twinkle

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

User creation log

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

Rollback

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

Huggle

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

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

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 1	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[10]	Already had up to level 4 warnings today on this article from other users, so straight to AIV My report to AIV Thankfully they were very rapidly blocked by the admin [11] Later, the admin hid the edits made by this editor - see User Contributions so my diff in 3rd column no longer works unfortunately - see also admins deletion log [12]
Example 2	WP:NPOV	[13]	Added their own opinion "...well known for causing trouble" about a protest group, this editor already had level 1 NPOV warning today, so I gave a level 2 {{subst:uw-npov2}}.
1	Test edit	[14]	Talked about drainage systems on a political list article so presumably a test edit. Notified on user talk.	N. It is unsourced edit. Pls see note on test edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
2	Test edit	[15]	Added a string of characters and section blanking so could possibly be a test. Warned on talk.	N. It is a deletion which is a vandalism edit. Pls see note on test edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
3	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[16]	Very obscene vandalism, involving many swear words and insults. Gave a level 2 warning after multiple disallowed edits and then 4im after they did not stop. (I let a couple more disallowed edits slip after the level 2 warning but clearly didn't want to stop). All contributions were adding this text and getting disallowed.	Y no AIV report provided. Do note if an editor (A) made several vandalism edits in a row, we count as one vandalism edit (warning level would depend on how series the nature of the edit). However, if there is another editor (B) revert/made an edit then the editor (A) made another vandalism edit then there are total 2 vandalsim edit made by editor (A). Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
4	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[17]	Edit warring vandal. Didn't get a chance to intervene but warned on talk [18] and later reported to AIV [19] and rangeblocked [20].	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
5	WP:NPOV	[21]	Editor adding unsourced info to a BLP claiming a politician is 'widely regarded as corrupt'.	N This is a vandalism edit. a non NPOV edit usually adding adjective to enhance/reduce one's apperances or merit such as She is the "most beautiful singer in the world; Nepal "slammed" Norway in the match and etc. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
6	WP:NPOV	[22]	Basic NPOV violation. Warned on talk by ClueBot.	Y and also source and if the editor keep on edit in the same manner after receiving warning then we could treat it as a vandalism edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
7	WP:SPAM	[23]	IP added an Instagram link, but Wikipedia is not a public relations platform. Warned by someone else on user talk.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
8	Talking on the article	[24]	Someone giving an opinion on an article, although not a particularly constructive opinion either.	N You need to be the one do the revert (not pass revert but current). Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
9	Unsourced	[25]	Addition of unsourced information on a BLP. Warned on user talk.	N. Normally the WP:LEAD section should be summaries the most important part of the subject from the body tex which rightfully should be sourced. If by any reason the content is not in the body text and it is significant enough to be added in LEAD section then it should be sourced. Here you have unsouced content and in addition also adding in personal statement " Let’s hope Jim alers takes the fight and grows a pair and doesn’t back out of the fight for the 3rd time meanwhile Luis palomino wants to shut up alers crazy social media antics and criticism when he truly isn’t the champion". We are looking at unsourced body content for this question. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
10	Blanking	[26]	Disallowed by edit filter but first time blanking.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
11	Original research/unsourced	[27]	Good faith, but unsourced edit, also a COI.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
12	Blanking	[28]	Unexplained section blanking, warned on user talk	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
13	Vandalism	[29]	Blocked before I could report to AIV	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
14	Blanking	[30]	Unexplained blanking, so rollbacked and warned on talk	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
15	Triggering the edit filter/ Vandalism	[31]	Repeatedly triggering the edit filter, warned on talk.	Y a vandalism edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
16	Test edit	[32]	Triggered the edit filter with repeating characters but no deletion. Warned on user talk.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
17	Test edit	[33]	Triggered the edit filter with repeating characters but no deletion. Warned on user talk.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
18	Talking in article	[34]	Giving opinions meant for talk page on main article. Warned on talk by David Biddulph, but I justified my reversion in the edit summary. They stopped trying to make that edit so I didn't report them.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
19	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[35]	User blanking page repeatedly. Was warned once, then edited logged out, then thrice more logged in. Edits were reverted all times. Thus they vandalized past their last warning and violated 3RR [36]. They had been given their final warning so went straight to AIV. [37]	Y Good work. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
20	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[38] but see box	User repeatedly adding defamatory content to BLP. I reported them after they socked 5 times and did not stop. The page was eventually pending changes protected, and then shortly after upgraded to extended confirmed protected after I opened an ANI thread here. The relevant accounts and diffs are on there. (There's a lot of them so I didn't add them here.) I was going to go to AIV and then RFPP but I decided to take the whole thing to ANI. One IP was warned once by ClueBot, [39]. Then they started using a different IP where another user and I warned them again twice [40]. Then they socked again, so I gave a 4im [41], then they socked a fourth time, and I gave another 4im [42], and after that I stopped warning them and drafted my ANI post while reverting their changes. All the diffs of their edits are on the ANI thread. I have attached the hist to the left for you to see, though.	Y. To note: the question is about AIV not ANI but I understand your point. This editor make the first edit and only edit, although the edit was considered vandslim, to place "only warning is too much" Do note on Assignment on what constitutes of placing 4im warning. Lastly, pls provide ANI hist diff (all hist diffs) next time. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
21	WP:NPOV	[43]	Phrases like 'widely praised' for doing something 'coolly'. Warned on user talk	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
22	unsourced	[44]	Added info on shooting location but no source provided. Warned on user talk.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer Good day. If Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. At the moment STiki is not working. Pls provide article name, hist diffs, editor talk page where you place the warning message, reports hist diffs and any links that is applicable. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Just wondering - do the diffs have to be actual diffs or can they be things disallowed by an edit filter?, because a lot of the vandalism is disallowed. Thanks, Giraffer (munch) 11:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer pls refer to example 1 and example 2 hist diff(s) (revert, vandalism edit, report, results of the report, talk page, contribution log, anything that explain, show, justify and etc of that particular edit of the answer. Pls provide guidelines link where appropriate. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer Hi, I think you still have a few questions to answer, pls let me know if you need any assistance. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, yes apologies. I have been working on this slowly but steadily. I have been having trouble finding diffs but am nearly done. Apologies for the delay, I had some stuff IRL. Thanks, Giraffer (munch) 22:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer Kindly provide the hist diff for answer #3 and rework on question #4 where an AIV report is needed. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have (finally) finished. I was of course involved in each example but sometimes I took care of the edits another user warned them instead of me, and vice versa. I have replaced the AIV report and some others with better examples. Regards, Giraffer (munch) 12:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer See above review and pls complete additional question from 16-22. Ping me when you have done with the additional questions. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer Good work on the additional questions. Now you have only 2 AIV reports (pls provide AIV reports hist diffs) to go. Do not most vandalism traffic occur during Friday and Saturday nights (U.S) time. UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Rakić on Saturday night would be vandalized (all UFC events are vandalised in Wikipedia, it just depends how intensively the vandalism would be. You might able to find editors vandalism the page many time to report them. see here for your time zone when the event is taking place (prelim and main card)). Ping me when you have finished the last to questions. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, thanks! Yes, I've been having trouble finding AIV reports to do so I'll monitor that page then. Thanks and regards, Giraffer (munch) 07:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have (FINALLY) finished. The second ANI/AIV report was pretty messy, so I can provide anymore details if you want. Thanks! Giraffer (munch) 11:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer See comment. Let me know if you have any question or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have read the comment and am ready to move on. I gave the user a 4im because they were an obvious sock, but I understand your point. Giraffer (munch) 12:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Notes ((1) Test edit means "the editor trying to make an edit to make sure they could actually make an edit in Wikipedia. However, since this is the editor first edit, we could place test edit message to educate and lead the editor to their sandbox to practice their edits. Sometimes an editor makes a test edit, say remove or adding an alphabet to a word in the page, or putting "hi/hello" on the page on their first edit and then revert their own edit on their second edit - see example for self revert test edit - here user self revert their edit after testing on the first edit.

(2) If an editor remove unsouced content, leave it and do nothing as content should support by source(s) - see WP:PROVEIT.

(3) Even thought vandalism message and tool in English Wikipedia is considered a "flexible system" where we would place the level as we see vandal fighters see fix, for vandal that is not that serious and not prolific, we still use level 1 first and increase the level on subsequent vandal edit of the same nature. Some admin will not block editors if warning messages are not enough.

Shared IP tagging

There are a number of IP user talk page templates which show helpful information to IP users and those wishing to warn or block them. There is a list of these templates

{{Shared IP}} - For general shared IP addresses.
{{ISP}} - A modified version specifically for use with ISP organizations.
{{Shared IP edu}} - A modified version specifically for use with educational institutions.
{{Shared IP gov}} - A modified version specifically for use with government agencies.
{{Shared IP corp}} - A modified version specifically for use with businesses.
{{Shared IP address (public)}} - A modified version specifically for use with public terminals such as in libraries, etc.
{{Mobile IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with a mobile device's IP.
{{Dynamic IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with dynamic IPs.
{{Static IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with static IPs which may be used by more than one person.

Each of these templates take two parameters, one is the organisation to which the IP address is registered (which can be found out using the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page. The other is for the host name (which is optional) and can also be found out from the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page.

Also, given that different people use the IP address, older messages are sometimes refused so as to not confuse the current user of the IP. Generally any messages for the last one-two months are removed, collapsed, or archived. The templates available for this include:

{{OW}} for when the messages are deleted from the talk page.
{{Old IP warnings top}} and {{Old IP warnings bottom}} for collapsing the user warnings and leaving them on the talk page.
{{Warning archive notice}} for when the messages are archived, and that archiving follows the usually naming sequence (that is, /Archive 1).

NOTE: All of the templates in this section are not substituted (so don't use "subst:").

Hi Giraffer, Posted Assignment 4 above. No exercises for this assignment but only some reading material. Once you have done reading, pls let me know so I would post Assignment 5 for you. Cheers. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have finished reading. Giraffer (munch) 19:35, 3 September 2020 (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: We deny recognition to the trolls and vandals to avoid encouraging them by giving them exceptional attention. If they are not continuously acknowledged, they will lose interest and stop.

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) 04:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: A good faith user would ask what they did wrong, a troll would normally not. A troll would also use different wording if they did ask. It would be more aggressive and/or provocative, in which case I would not respond.

. If they ask the questions is a way of trolling, then we can igore them; however, if they ask questions regarding their edits/warning message, we answer with straight mechanical fashion. 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/ contribution log would help; however, the bottom line is that trolls want to annoy you and good faith editors annoyed at you and that is the subtle different. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:44, 6 September 2020 (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: You should immediately email emergency@wikimedia.org with the details on the page it was posted, the user, the time, the location (if the user has it on their userpage) and to whom the threat was directed as well as a link to it if it is still up (not revdeled or oversighted).

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:44, 6 September 2020 (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: The same as above. You should still report it, as there is no certainty that the threat is empty.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:44, 6 September 2020 (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:

Logging out and vandalizing as an IP
Creating new accounts for block or sanction evasion.
Getting others to create accounts to support you in a dispute (meatpuppetry)
Using an old account and showing it as a different user
Using someone else's account or sharing an account

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Giraffer, see Assignment 5 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Giraffer, You have apparently answered all the questions for Assignment 5 above, however, you havent ping me for review. Kindly advise. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, re-read my answers and I am ready for review. Thanks. Giraffer (munch) 09:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Giraffer, See above comments. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have read the comments and am ready to move on. Thanks. Giraffer (munch) 14:17, 6 September 2020 (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: A page should be semi-protected if it receives repeated vandalism from new or unregistered users.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

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

: Answer: If there are lots of good edits, but also a lots of vandalism, both coming from non-autoconfirmed users. Normally this is also used for high traffic pages that experience high levels of vandalism for a short period of time.; N. Low traffic but persistence vandalism edits over a period of time such as a few days to weeks. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: This is normally used for either high traffic redirects, preserving retired users' pages or protecting some high-profile policy or template pages. I couldn't find much explanation for how this is supposed to be used but took a look at [45]

. 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. As a result only Admins can edit these pages. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: A page should be salted if it is repeatedly being recreated after it has been deleted. This can be either as a result of repeated AfDs, or if it is an attack page, or multiple CSDs.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: If they are being severely vandalised, or the vast majority of edits are unhelpful and disruptive. The protection should be for as short as possible

. 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. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:30, 13 October 2020 (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:

[46] - I requested EC protection for AC/DS, sockpuppetry, and POV-pushing, but was only granted semi-protection. An hour later the page was upgraded to EC (I would call that successful).

Good work - see granted protection here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii:[47] Rfpp

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD. Done

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

Answer: A page can be speedily deleted if it is very obvious that it does not belong on Wikipedia. The criteria is a list of most of these things, such as promotions (G11), web hosting (U5), etc.

Pls list down all the CSDs and briefly indicate what the criteria. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer again:

G1: If a page is just pure nonsense

G2: If the page is a test page

G3: If the page is a hoax, or just a page for vandalism

G4: If the page is identical to one deleted via a deletion discussion (this does not include PROD or CSD)

G5: If the page was created by a banned or blocked user, or their sock (the page must have been created after their ban/block)

G6: Technical deletions (i.e. deleting a blank page which is preventing a page move)

G7: If the author requests deletion, either by tagging or blanking

G8: If the page is orphaned (i.e. talk pages without a project/article page, subpages with no parent page)

G9: Office actions (WMF actions)

G10: Attack pages (if the page is only meant for harm, or libel)

G11: If the page is purely for promotion of one or more individuals

G12: Copyright infringements (if the page contains major copyright issues)

G13: Drafts abandoned for over 6 months with very little chance of ever being substantially edited again

A1: Articles with no context (subject is unclear)

A2: Articles in another language that already exist on said language's Wikipedia

A3: Articles that are empty (this should not be used immediately after creation)

A5: Articles that have been moved to another Wikimedia project

A7: Articles about a person that show no reasonable indication of notability (this only includes people, groups, animals, web events)

A9: Articles about a music recording that do not show its notability

A10: Articles that are duplicates of a pre-existing article

A11: Articles that are about inventions that are not notable and created by someone related to the creator (e.g. a word their best friend made up last week)

U1: User requested deletion

U2: Userpage for a user that does not exist (e.g. User:Giraffer CVUA)

U3: Userpage that is primarily a gallery of non-free photos (which are prohibited from use in userpace)

U5: Userpages being used as web hosting platforms

> Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 15 October 2020 (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: Copyvio:

[48]

pls provide your a link to your CSD log and indicate the month and # (Example this Draft: Ng Yi Xian would be on your CSD log September #4 - see here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: Promo

[49]

- Your CSD log September #5. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: U5 (misuse of Wikipedia as a web host)

[50]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer iv: U5 (misuse of Wikipedia as a web host)

[51]

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer, See Assignment 6 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have finished. For the CSD, it may be worth taking a look at my log. Thanks, Giraffer ^munch 07:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer, Good day. For Speedy deletion Q1 - you need to list down all the CSD and state the criteria (use your own words pls) for Q2 pls provide hist diff (you can find it at your user contribution log) when you nominate the page for CSD. Once you have done that, then let me know. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, is what I have done ok, and should I also list the other CSD criteria? (I'm not sure if I've done it correctly) Thanks, Giraffer ^munch

Giraffer, See above comments. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Usernames

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

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: Monitor, D Johnson is not an uncommon name, just like 'John Smith', but check for edits for articles like Dwayne Johnson and if they are substantial, discuss at WP:COIN.

Discuss at WP:COIN if editing articles related to anyone with the name D Johnson

. Unless from their edit history we can prove a case of WP:IMPERSONATE, if not do nothing. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

LMedicalCentre

Answer: Report, implies shared use, and also promotional.

Ask an admin, not urgent enough for WP:UAA

. Violation of the username policy as a username that implies shared use. Report to WP:UAA if they started making or editing the medical centre page in a promotional way. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Fuqudik

Answer: Report, subtle PA.

Report to WP:UAA

Not PA but offensive and disruptive username policies. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

ColesStaff

Answer: Shared use, so report.

Report to WP:UAA

. Might imply staff of a company called Coles. 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. Wait until the editor start editing and see what is their intention.If the user edits is aimed to advertise and promote Coles then report it toWP:UAA Wait until the editor start editing and see what is their intention before reporting to WP:UAA. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

~~~~

Answer: Report, messes around with wikitext, and frankly is probably a sock given by their knowledge of wikitext pre-registration.

Report to WP:UAA

. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

172.295.64.27

Answer: Report, names cannot be IP addresses

Report to WP:UAA

. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Bieberisgay

Answer: Report, BLP violation

Report to WP:UAA and possibly request username suppression

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer, Assignment 7 above. You have one more easy assignment after this, a 7 day monitoring period and then final exam. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have finished. Giraffer ^munch 08:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer, Kindly indicate (provide link) where they should be reported to. When you have done, ping me. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have provided the links. Thanks, Giraffer ^munch 11:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer, See above comment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Progress test

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

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

Scenario 1

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

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

Answer: Vandalism. There is well sourced information that he is married (to a woman) and no true, sourced info that he is gay. Because of his popularity, 'gay' is probably used as a derogatory term and not as a serious edit, so I would flag it for vandalism.

. The intent is to defame a person without sourc Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

Answer: WP:VD, WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and literally WP:UNSOURCED, but 'gay' is probably used as an insult and not a genuine edit.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{uw-vandalism1}} (or possibly {{uw-defamatory1}})

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The user has now added offensive words to the article 3 times. You have reverted three times already, can you be blocked for violating the three revert rule in this case?

Answer: No. WP:3RRNO states the a user can break 3RR if they are reverting obvious vandalism. I have done this many times.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: IPvandal.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Edit warring and repeatedly adding libelous information on a BLP.

. For edit warring it needs to be the 4th times after a edit warring warning placed on the editor talk page. Report to WP:AIV for stating violation of WP:BLP both by adding unsourced and defaming material. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Scenario 2

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

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

Answer: A test edit (not vandalism but not exactly good faith).

. Treat it as good faith if is a new account, probably unsure how to edit or edit testing. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{uw-test1}} (see note on Q4)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

.Green - Assume good faith. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The user now has a level 3 warning on their talk page. They make a vandal edit, would it be appropriate to report this user to AIV? Why or why not?

Answer: Probably not. They have to vandalize past their 4th warning to get reported, unless the vandalism is really egregious.

NOTE: At this point I would stop warning them for test edits and warn them for vandalism, because it is clear they are no longer testing anything, but trying to disrupt.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: If that is their only contributions, yes.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: vandal

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Repeatedly vandalizing articles (past 4th warning)

Scenario 3

You see a new account called "LaptopsInc" which has created a new page called "Laptops Inc" (which only contains the words "Laptops Inc" and a few lines of text copied from the company's website). The user also added "www.laptopsinc.com" on the Laptop article. You research Laptops Inc on Google and find that is a small company.

Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option would you use?

Answer: Rollback (Blue)

. They are trying to promote themselves. It is not good faith as they knew they were linking the wikipedia as a "Spam link". Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

Answer: {{uw-advert1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: G11 (or G12 if the text copied is substantial)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: No, I would go straight to UAA, but if their edits weren't disruptive, I would leave {{uw-coi-username}}

. and / or use ==Speedy deletion nomination of PageName==

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on PageName, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes, the user has demonstrated a COI with a promotional username. This is stated as a reason to go to UAA at: [52], and it violates no. 3 of the criteria at UAA. Yes I would report as it violates the Promotional username policy. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer, See Assignment 8 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I've finished. Giraffer ^munch 11:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer, See above comments. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2020 (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: Rollback may only be used: To revert obvious vandalism

It can also be used on your own edits and in your own user space.. Cassiopeia^(talk)

Answer: Rollback may NOT be used: To revert good faith but unconstructive edits, basically anything that isn't blatant vandalism

. Rollback should not be used to revert changes that you disagree with or to edit war. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?

Answer: If you intended to undo, make a dummy edit explaining what you intended to revert. If you did not intend to rollback then undo and explain why in the edit summary.

. Cassiopeia^(talk)

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

Answer: No

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer, See assignment 9 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have completed the questions. Apologies for the delay, I was on a wikibreak. Giraffer ^munch 17:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer, Reviewed. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:06, 7 November 2020 (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.

Giraffer,, Greeting. The next phase of this course is Assignment 10 - "monitoring period", see above and notes below. Pls make about 30 counter vandalism edits so I may check. Final exam will follows after the monitoring period. Do raise any questions if you have any. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, sorry, I didn't know I had to ping you for this since it was time-based. I think I have done over 30 reversions. Thanks, Giraffer ^munch 17:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer, Thank you for informing. Pls give me a few days to review them. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer, Your monitoring period has shown no major issues. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:06, 5 December 2020 (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

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: If it was their first instance, I would revert it, and warn them with a level 1 test edit warning.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 2: If they kept doing it, I would keep warning them, and if they surpassed level 4, I would report them.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 3: I would revert them and tell them again, but with the disruptive editing template (because articlesig is single use).

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 4: If enough time had passed for them to acknowledge the warnings and they still kept doing it, it would report them, most likely to ANI.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (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: If the article mentions a John Smith, I would revert them and five them a level 1 NPOV template. If not, I would warn them for vandalism (level 1).

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 6: I would continue to warn them (only with vandalism templates after level 2), and if they surpassed level 4, I would report them to AIV

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: I would revert them and would give them a level 1 warning for testing.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 8: I would continue to warn them for vandalism, not testing, but not report them, because their edits are not egregious vandalism and they haven't passed level 4.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

9, 10 & 11. What would you do when 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: I would check the source. If it is wrong, I would leave it. If not, I would warn them for deletion.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 10: If the source was correct and they kept removing it, then I would continue to warn them for deletion.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 11: Not really. The only difference is if the user had a history of positive contributions I might ask them instead of template them.

{{tick}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 12: Nothing, it is ok to remove unsourced content.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 13: If it was relevant, I would warn them with level 1 deletion, if it wasn't relevant, I would leave it.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (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: Email emergency@wikimedia.org with a diff and request revdel via Discord DM or IRC.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: Email emergency@wikimedia.org with a diff and request revdel Discord DM or IRC.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)n

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.

I am assuming for all of these that it is the editor's first time unless otherwise stated. Giraffer ^munch 10:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

OK. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

1. A user blanks Cheesecake

Answer 1: {{uw-blank1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 2: {{uw-attempt2}} - probably level 2 because it's on a BLP and it's swearing.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 3: {{uw-bes2}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: {{uw-vandalism1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 5: {{uw-delete1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

Answer 6: {{uw-test1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: {{uw-vandalism1}} if Tim is not in the article, otherwise {{uw-npov1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 8: {{uw-defamatory1}}

. Alternative {{uw-biog1}}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 9: {{uw-delete4im}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: Report to AIV

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (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 11: Revert and report to ANI

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 12: {{uw-test}}

. {uw-image1}}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (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 13: {{uw-npa4im}}

. It is considered a personal attac. Revert and report them to the WP:AIV. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

14. A user adds "Italic text to Sydney

Answer 14: {{uw-mos1}}

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 15: {{uw-vandalism2}}

. Alternative {{uw-defamatory1}}. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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}}
16	Test edit	1	Person adding random characters to Wonder Woman, reverted and warned. Warning	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
17	Test edit	2	Person adding random characters to Temple of Edfu, reverted and warned. Warning	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
18	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	3	User blanked and I reverted, I later saw they were doing move vandalism, so I issued a 4im instead of a lower template. Warning They didn't stop, so I reported them to AIV. Report I then left a message on Oshwah's talk page where he then undid the move vandalism. Conversation	Y. Very good. When we see an editor made serious vandalism edit, we would go and check on their contribution page to see if they have made the same type of edits on other pages. If so we would revert their edits and place warning messages in their talk page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
19	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	4	After vandalizing past a 4im warning given by administrator Drmies, I reported the user to AIV. Report They were blocked shortly thereafter.	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
20	WP:NPOV	5	Textbook example of an NPOV violation, reverted and warned. Warning	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
21	WP:Fringe theories	6	User adding fringe theories saying that Chris Whitty is a puppet of Bill Gates and a fascist. Reverted and given a 4im for repeated egregious vandalism (the previous person who reverted didn't warn them). Warning They were also a sockpuppet and so I opened an investigation. SPI	Y. Well-done on the ISP report. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
22	WP:SPAM	7	User adding link as promotion, reverted and warned. Warning	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
23	Talking on the article	8	User states that the article is biased, in the article. Reverted and warned. Warning	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
24	Unsourced	9	IP adds statistics to article, without providing a source. Warning	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
25	Your choice (Vandalism)	10	IP vandalizing, reverted and warned. Warning	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
26	Your choice (Blanking)	11	IP blanking, reverted and warned. Warning	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
27	Your choice (vandalism)	12	IP vandalizing, reverted and warned. Warning	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
28	Your choice (vandalism)	13	IP vandalizing, reverted and warned. Warning	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
29	Your choice (unsourced)	14	User adding unsourced content, reverted and warned. Warning	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
30	Your choice (vandalism)	15	IP vandalizing, reverted and warned. Warning	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (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 1: G11

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

Answer 2: A1/A7

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

3. Joe goes to England and comes home !

Answer 3: A1

. Alternative A7. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: G3

. Alternative WP:A11. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

5. Fuck Wiki!

Answer 5: G3

. Alternative WP:G10. Cassiopeia^(talk)

What would you do in the following circumstance:

6. A user blanks a page they very recently created

Answer 6: Wait, if they don't restore the content then CSD G7

, we usually would take if the creator blank the page they created means the would like the page to be deleted. Alternately, we can write to the editor to confirm of such action. Furthermore, if the page is deem probable notable then move it to draft page and let the editor know of your action. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: Leave it.

. Creator normally cannot remove CSD tags from articles that they created . However, Wikipedia allows creators to use G7 to remove such tags. In this case, we could assume blank the page as a means to activate G7 by the creator. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (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 8: Warn with {{subst:uw-afd1}} them and re-instate the tag, 3RRNO applies here.

. If the re-instate the tag we would tag {{subst:uw-afd2}} as removing AfD is considered vandalism act. The Afd tag would only could be removed once the AfD is closed if the result of the AfD is a "keep" or redirect in this case the page would be redirect to a said page. If the AfD close as a "delete" then the page would be deleted. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 9: Keep warning them with the template, if they exceed the fourth warning then report them to ANI or AIV.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: G13

. Before nominate the page for G13, do remember to always check if the subject/content first, if it is deemed probable that would meet notability guidelines , then make a dummy edit to defer G13 by other editor and allow the creator to work on the page. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (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 1: Report to UAA, implies shared use

. We would check the user's edits on their contribution log . If they are clearly promoting a band called "The Main Street Band", you can feel free to report to WP:UAA. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

2. Poopbubbles

Answer 2: Report to UAA, contains 'poop'

. Close call but really a blatant, but if the editor is vandalizing at the same time, then reporting to AIV for "vandalism-only account". If they are editing constructively, I would discuss with them instead. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

3. Brian's Bot

Answer 3: Check if it's an approved bot, if not report to UAA, contains 'bot' which is a perm.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

4. sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj

Answer 4: Report to UAA, incoherent gibberish.

. If the editor make vandalism edits or egregious descriptive edits then I will report it to [WP:UAA]], so do check/wait to examine the editor edit first. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

5. Bobsysop

Answer 5: Report to UAA, contains 'sysop' which is a perm.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

6. 12, 23 June 2012

Answer 6: Report to UAA, highly confusing username.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

7. PMiller

Answer 7: Monitor for promotional edits, but not a username problem.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

8. OfficialJustinBieber

Answer 8: Report, impersonation, although refer to OTRS in the (highly unlikely) event it is Bieber himself.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

9. The Dark Lord of Wiki

Answer 9: Ignore, not disruptive, 'Wiki' is a vague term.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

10. I love you

Answer 10: Leave it, not disruptive unless they start trolling.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Part 5 (10%)

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 1: No, WP:3RRNO says that obvious counter-vandalism is exempt, and from personal experience non-obvious vandalism should be reverted up to 3 times and then reported to ANI instead of AIV.

WP:3RRNO says that obvious counter-vandalism is exempt, but 3RR is normally due with editors involve in edit warring due to content dispute and it is not "should" be reverted up to 3 times but can be reverted up to 3 times within 24 hour period on the same page before a "3RR" warning place on the involved editor. If the same editor revert the 4th time within 24 hours on the same page then we report the editor to WP:AN3/WP:ANEW by providing 3RR hist diff edits. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 2: AIV, after being sufficiently warned (usually 4 times, occasionally less depending on the severity of the vandalism).

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

3. Where and how should complex abuse be reported?

Answer 3: Wikihounding and personal attacks should be reported to ANI, abuse that requires off-wiki evidence should go to ArbCom, although per the recent RfC, cases involving real-world (offline) evidence should go to T&S.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 4: UAA

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 5: ANI, after being sufficiently warned. All involved parties must be notified.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 6: ANEW with diffs of reverts and warnings.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 7: BLPN, for BLP vandalism AIV, and for long-term behavioral issues ANI (generally only if BLPN has failed to resolve the issue(s)).

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

8. Where and how should a stock puppet be reported?

Answer 8: SPI with behavioral evidence.

.Always include hist diff edits. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 9: RfPP with desired time and protection

. WP:RPP. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 10: ANEW

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Part 6 - Theory in practice (40%)

1-5. Correctly request the protection of five articles (2 pending and 3 semi/full protection); post the diffs of your requests below. (pls provide page name and hist diff of the RPP report)

Answer 1: Fortnite World Cup - RfPP

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 2: 2021 United States Capitol protests - RfPP

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 3: Candace Owens - RfPP

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 4: Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - [53]

. Do note we dont preemptive request RPP but only request after many vandalism edits done by multiple editor. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 5: Costa (surname) - RfPP

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

6-7. Find and revert one good faith edit, one self-revert test edit, one test edit and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.

Answer 6: Unsourced (good faith) edit Warning

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 7: Possible test edit Warning

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Self reverted test edit Warning

, you didnt give the the specific hist diff but the history page itself, I believe you meant this editor here. The template should be test edit but you have place a welcoming template. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

8, & 9.Correctly report two users for violating of 3RR to ANI). Give the diffs of your report below. (Remember you need to warn the editor first)

Answer 8: Edit warring vandal

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 9: Edit warring user

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

10-14. Correctly nominate 5 articles for speedy deletion; post article names and the diffs of your nominations below. (for promotion and copyvio- you can look for articles in Article for Creation. Pls use Darwig's Copyvio Detector. CSD 12 only if huge portion of the article is copyvioed.

Answer 10 promotion: #8 December 2020, from my log - Notif to user

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 11 copyvio violation: #9 December 2020, from my log - Notif to user

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 12 copyvio violatio: #19 December 2020, from my log - Notif to user (scroll to bottom)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 13 Your choice (U5): #6 December 2020, from my log - Notif to user

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 14 Your choice (G11): #7 December 2020, from my log - Notif to user

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

15-20. Correctly report five username as a breache of policy.

Answer 15: Report of an offensive username

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 16: Report of a shared username

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 17: Report of a shared use and promotional username

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 18: Report of a shared use username

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 19: Report of an offensive username

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

19 & 20. Why is edit warring prohibited? What leads to edit warring?

Answer 20: Edit warring occurs when two or more contributors disagree over the content of a page, or a certain part of it. They then continuously revert each other, or edit war.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 21: It is prohibited because it is disruptive and makes the page difficult for other editors to edit. It also makes consensus harder to reach, and it can create tension between users.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 21: Vandalism on BLPs is more severe because it can directly impact the person. They can influence the article's POV, and the person can sue for defamation. They can also make Wikipedia significantly lose its credibility if there is found to be vandalism on a page.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

22& 23. What would you do if a troll keeps harassing you? What must you not engage with the trolls?

Answer 22: If a troll harassed me I would not engage. If it got really bad I would report it to T&S and if I felt in danger I would report it to Emergency.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer 23: Denying trolls recognition helps them lose interest quicker and leave you/Wikipedia alone faster.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

24. What is the difference between semi and full protection?

Answer 24: Semi-protection means (auto)confirmed users can edit, full protection means only sysops can edit.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer 25: They harm the collaborative atmosphere, and can drive away contributors, and they are extremely counter-productive, and just generally unkind.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Giraffer See Final exam questions above. All the best! Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I've finished. Because all of my CSDs have been deleted, I haven't included the links to the original sources for the G12s, but let me know if you would like me to do that. The ones I picked are also all drafts, but judging from the description of that section that seems to be ok. Let me know if you me to do anything more. Thanks, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 08:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Giraffer Thank you for informing. Give me till this weekend to get it review. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Final score

Part	Total available	Your score	Percentage weighting	Your percentage
1	15	15	15%	15%
2	30	29	30%	29%
3	10	9.5	10%	9.5%
4	10	8.5	10%	8.5%
5	10	9.5	10%	9.5%
6	25	24	40%	24%
TOTAL	100	95.5	100	95.5%

Completion

Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction! You have now graduated from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy and completed your final exam with 95.5%. Well done!

As a graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox (make sure you replace your enrollee userbox) as well as the graduation message posted on your talk page (this can be treated the same as a barnstar).
{{User CVUA|graduate}}:

This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate.

Hi Giraffer It's been a pleasure to work with you over the past few months. I hope you gained something from this CVUA program. Do download WP:Huggle if you havent as this is a great vandalism tool to use. You can request for Wikipedia:Rollback right here and do mention you have passed the CUVA and mention my name in case the admin need to verify. I use both Twickle and Huggle but they do not have all the warning templates install in the system. So when require, manually subst them. to Do drop by my talk page you have any questions as I am here to help. Best of luck, and thank you so much for your willingness to help Wikipedia in this role. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Callanecc, who has graciously published his training methods on-wiki. As I thought his methods were of higher quality than anything I could achieve on myself, I used his materials for your training, with a few minor tweaks and additional questions.