User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/VolatileAnomaly

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/VolatileAnomaly.

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 have graduated, 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

VolatileAnomaly Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 02:02, 7 November 2024 (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:In short, a good faith edit is a genuine, if not misguided attempt to improve an article, while vandalism seeks to deliberately disrupt it. For example, someone who adds unsourced information or a copyrighted image may believe they are being helpful, unaware of the underlying Wikipedia policies (though those edits should be reverted nonetheless). Meanwhile, someone repeatedly blanking an article with no justification or adding racial slurs cannot be reasonably said to serve any constructive purpose. When evaluating vandalism, I would look at a variety of factors, such as recent edits, context of the page, and whether the user had any previous warnings to make my determination.

Y. Note: unsourced content can be removed. Good faith edits such as incorrect WP:MOS, table format, spelling/grammar mistakes. An act of vandalism is where the editor knowingly adds or removes content which could be something like the addition of nonsense, or juvenile humour, vulgarities or blanking sourced content of sections or articles. Pls note that disruptive edits are not considered vandalism; however, continuing adding disruptive and unsourced content after final warnings can be reported and the editors will be blocked from editing. If you are not sure about an edit is vandalism act or not, then check the editing pattern of previous edits of the editor or IP, look at their history log, talk page for previous warnings (you might have to look at the talk page history in case it was blanked) you could also be wary of a new account which may be just unfamiliar with the system and so it it preferred to assume good faith. 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 02:02, 7 November 2024 (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) Special:Diff/1253750003 Improperly formatted link producing no image, copyright status unknown

. If the URLs point to Amazon, this generally indicates that the images are copyrighted by Amazon or by the product manufacturers. Using these images without permission would likely be a copyright violation. Cassiopeia talk 02:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

(2) Special:Diff/1253730578

Good-faith effort to fix grammar, albeit incorrectly

. Good. Cassiopeia talk 02:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

(3)Special:Diff/1253562112

Attempted to add info to article but grammar was unintelligible

The editors had 2 edits on the same page. The first one was reverted by bot for vandalism. The editor IP address is from Ireland so grammar is not an issues for the Irlish since it is their first language. Go go the IP editor page and click on "WHOIS or

Geolocate" to see where the location of the IP address - see here -1 and -2. Cassiopeia talk 02:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

(4)Special:Diff/1254114188

Attempted correction of grammar introduced errors

both British and American English spelling can be used in Wikipedia. Cassiopeia talk 07:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

(5)Special:Diff/1254206149 MOS:ENGVAR

. Cassiopeia talk 07:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

(6)special:Diff/1250457114 Overlinking

. We dont wiki link country in Wikipedia. Cassiopeia talk 07:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism

Answer:

(1) Special:Diff/1253626295

Repeated efforts to add memes to page, led to multiple blocks and page protection

. Good. Cassiopeia talk 02:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

(2) Special:Diff/1248936207

Repeated removal of content + accusations of corruption(BLP violation)

. Well-done. Cassiopeia talk 02:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

(3) Special:Diff/1253290562

Targeted vandalism against YouTuber

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

VolatileAnomaly Good day. Pls read the following before answer the questions.

Any questions regarding the assignment, please let me know here (at the bottom of the assignment "the communication section". For other questions not relating to the assignments, ping me on my talk page. or at User talk:Cassiopeia/CVUA/VolatileAnomaly.
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 vandalism 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 experienced/counter-vandalism editors take action.
If you mistakenly give a warning to any editor wrongly, pls remove the warning and apologize. There is a assignment on communication with editors and we will discuss the topic on a later date.
Pls bookmark this page on your computer for easy searching
Pls note that the motto of CUVA is "Civility – Maturity – Responsibility." Welcome to CVUA. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 23:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

All done with the assignment Cassiopeia, ready for review whenever VolatileAnomaly (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly Reviewed. See comments above. Pls answer again Q4,5 and 6 on good faith section. Ping when you have completed them. If you have any questions, pls let me know. Cassiopeia talk 02:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, thank you for clarifying that even though certain edits may be done with good intentions, they would not qualify as "good faith edits" and can still be warned/blocked accordingly. I have found 3 new examples of good faith edits, hope there are no issues. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly Reviewed and see comments. Let me know if you have any questions or are ready to move on to the next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 07:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thank you for the feedback, I am ready to move on to the next assignment. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2024 (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 so they are made aware of their policy/guideline violations (mistakes) and can therefore learn from them to become better contributors.

. 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 00:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: In the event of continuous or excessive disruption from a single IP or user.

. 4im is only for widespread and particularly egregious vandalism and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism. Cassiopeia talk 00:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes, warning templates should be substituted like so:

{{subst:uw-test1}} Can also be done automatically using Twinkle.

. 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. Cassiopeia talk 00:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: Report to AIV (Administrator intervention against vandalism), admin will determine if block is necessary.

. Cassiopeia talk 00:00, 9 November 2024 (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-vandalism3}} obvious and repeated vandalism

. Cassiopeia talk 00:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Answer ii: {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} unsourced edit

. Cassiopeia talk 00:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Answer iii: {{subst:uw-blank2}} unexplained page blanking after initial warning

. Cassiopeia talk 00:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly See assignment 2 above. Cassiopeia talk 07:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Just finished answering, ready for review. Thanks, VolatileAnomaly (talk) 07:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly Well-done. Reviewed. Please see comments above. Please let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 00:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia thanks for the prompt review, I'm ready to move on to the next assignment. Best VolatileAnomaly (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2024 (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)	[1]	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 [2] 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 [3]
Example 2	WP:NPOV	[4]	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	Special:Diff/1256282786	Article Spot market, first time edit so didn't warn with spam.Welcomed with test edit template.	Y. Test edits are edits that the editor "tries to see if they can actually make an edit in Wikipedia" and it usually come in the form of "adding "hi", "hello" "test" adding or/and removing a character, number. If they revert back their test edit that is called ="self-revert test edit". Cassiopeia talk 02:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
2	Test edit	Special:Diff/1256295350	Unexplained addition to ISO 8601, assumed good faith and welcomed with test edit template.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 02:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
3	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	Special:Diff/1256293521	Repeated removal of infoboxes (last instance at You.tv, diff listed above) after level 4 and level 4-im warnings. Personally warned with level 2 and level 3 unexplained page removal templates. Reported to AIV, though was overridden by another report which provided more info. User contribs found here for all articles blanked. Later blocked by admin	Y. Well-done! Cassiopeia talk 02:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
4	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	Special:Diff/1256316737	Added spam and blanked section in Niki Kerameus, repeatedly restored said disruptive edits despite multiple warnings. Reported to AIV after final warning.	Y. Good. Cassiopeia talk 02:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
5	WP:NPOV	Special:Diff/1256281716	First time offender who added negative opinions on Ubuntu Touch operating system (customer complaint?). Warned user with level 1 template.	Y. It could be also considered as "unsourced" and to a point it is also considered "vandalism". Cassiopeia talk 02:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
6	WP:NPOV	Special:Diff/1256287459	Charged language "great stir" against Chelsea Noble, also potential BLP violation. First time offense, so warned with level 1 template. User continued to add unsourced information, so given level 2 BLP warning.	Y. I believe you meant THIS edit. The edit was not only unsourced and NPOV but more so is BLP violation. POVNPOV is an edit use language that enhance/ introduce bias (positive light toward the subject) such as extremely, very, popular, beat the opponent to the other side of the realm - see [[MOS:PEACOCK] or adding negative light toward the subject - such as negative review (but the source state fair review, win with a lucky front kick ( we just put win via a front kick) and etc. NPOV means we write the in a neutral point of view as per fact per source. Cassiopeia talk 02:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
7	WP:SPAM	Special:Diff/1256312488	Repeated addition of promotional content (with external link) to Supply Chain regarding company named Zanjire. Given previous offenses, warned user with level 3 promotional materials template. Also requested speedy deletion (G11) of related draft Zanjire. User later blocked and deletion granted.	Y. Good. Cassiopeia talk 02:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
8	Talking on the article	Special:Diff/1256626367	Requested in List of wars involving Korea to add content (table that North Korea joined Ukraine war). Reminded (level 1 warning) to use talk page if requesting help.	Y. Good. Cassiopeia talk 02:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
9	Unsourced	Special:Diff/1256281770	Addition of unsourced info to Eleanor Roosevelt High School (Maryland) comparing school to prison (also potential NPOV issues). Gave user benefit of doubt and warned with unsourced template.	Y. Also considered an vandalism edit. Cassiopeia talk 02:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
10	Vandalism	Special:Diff/1256280811	First time offender who added meme edits to Chet Holmgren. Gave user the benefit of the doubt and welcomed with nonconstructive edit template	Y> Cassiopeia talk 02:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
11	Disruptive editing	Special:Diff/1256283564	Second time offender on Holy See, warned with level 2 disruptive edit template. Username may also indicate WP:NOTHERE, was later blocked for violating username policy.	N That is a vandalism edit. Disruptive edits at times are hard to define. However, it is usually an editor change/add info that is not really a outright vandalism but continuing to do so after a few warnings. For example, change the certain info a a parameter on the infobox not as per Project guidelines, redirect a page for no good reasons, adding many social media info on the external links for many articles, engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified "citation needed" or "more citations needed" tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is problematic, fails to engage in changes should reflect consensus and many more. - see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Cassiopeia talk 02:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
12	Unsourced	Special:Diff/1256284162	First time addition of unsourced, potentially speculative information on Video game crash of 1983. Welcomed with unsourced template.	N. This is a vandalism edit. Cassiopeia talk 02:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
13	Disruptive editing	Special:Diff/1256284760	First time offense, listed calories of Graham cracker as 50000000000, warned with level 1 disruptive edit.	Y. However, not a strong example of disruptive editing.02:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
14	Vandalism	Special:Diff/1256285740	Disruptive meme edits to Bolsa Grande High School. User had previous offenses on other articles. Gave level 3 vandalism warning.	N. It was a vandalism edit. Cassiopeia talk 02:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
15	Disruptive edit	Special:Diff/1256285934	Arbitrary name change on Arthur Cayley. First time editor and offender, so welcomed with nonconstructive edit template.	N. Clearly a vandalism edit. Cassiopeia talk 02:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
16	Disruptive edit	Special:Diff/1256074921	Initially noticed due to diff above. Soon discovered history of irrelevant and unsourced additions to page (e.g information about Persia to article about An (Chinese surname). Performed broader revert and warned with level 2 nonconstructive template. User then proceeded to readd information to the point where edit war notice was given. Ended when page was semiprotected.	Y It is a vandalism but also could considered disruptive. The page was wrongly protected as "several editors" need to engaged in vandalism/disruptive/unsourced edits in the same page. (We will look at page protection in the future assignment). If you look at the article history page - see HERE, the the is only one IP address and not as reported a several IP address which might be the same editor - see [HERE-2 (look for Nov 8 or use Ctrl F and type "An (Chinese surname)" to find the entry. The editor should be reported to AIV and get blocked instead. 3RR (edit warring) - Once the editor engage 3 edits on the same page within 24 hours, then the editor should be warned on editing warring and the "fourth" time, then the editor should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring by providing the article name, editor IP/user name and list all the edits plus the edit warring warning which had been placed on the editor and some explanation of the warring. Cassiopeia talk 08:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
17	unsourced	Special:Diff/1256690820	No source given for addition to Sacred Heart Canossian School. Checked contribs, user had added unsourced info previously but never warned. Welcomed with unsourced template for awareness of policy.	Y. Cassiopeia talk 08:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
18	Article Hijacking	Special:Diff/1256692608	User replaced information on Rob Shuter with info on himself. Could also be considered vandalism and self-promotion. Warned with policy warning regarding article hijacking. User was later blocked for promotion/advertising.	Y. Vandalism / Promotion. Cassiopeia talk 08:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
19	Vandalism	Special:Diff/1256693417	Replaced text of "suicide bomber" with "joshua perreira" on 2024 Quetta railway station bombing. First time edit and offense, so warned with level 1 vandalism template.	Y. Checked the sources and no mentioned of joshua perreira. Cassiopeia talk 08:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly Good day. See assignment 3 and it is the most difficult assignment besides the final exam. Take your time to complete the assignment if needed. If Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. Pls provide article name, hist diffs (including all reports), editor talk page where you place the warning message, reports hist diffs and any links that is applicable. Aslo, pls provide the reasons/justification/explanate of your answers. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 03:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Took some time to finish assignment 3. Ready for review whenever. Best VolatileAnomaly (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly Reviewed. Pls see comments (pls read comments also on the correct answers). Pls answer Q16 to Q19. Pls note that unsourced and disruptive edits are not considered vandalism edits; However, if an editor has received many warnings for unsourced and disruptive edits and continuing to edit the same manner, we can report to AIV and usually the editor will be blocked from editing. When you are not sure the edit is a vandalism edit or not, ask yourself, what is the "intention" of the editor of their edit? also check their history log and talk page to see the patterns of their edits. Pls let me know if you have anything to clarify and when you have finished the questions, pls ping me. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 02:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia thanks for explaining the difference between disruptive editing vs vandalism. For me, it can be sometimes hard to tell the difference if it's the user's first few edits. Q16-19 is now ready for review. Best VolatileAnomaly (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Also wanted to add a quick question. Sometimes I would see non-english content on Wikipedia. Any tips for determining intent in that case? Doesn't seem like there's a specific warning or reminder template either. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly It is sometimes a little difficult to tell the difference between vandalism and destructive edits. However, blatant vandalism is easy to spot. If you are not sure, then use the template disruptive template as disruptive edits are not vandalism but vandalism edits are always disruptive. Once you have more experience, then you can tell the different between those two. When we look at an edit, especially from new editors, we check if the edit is a vandalism edit, if we are not sure then check their contribution log and talk page. If the edit is unsourced but also considered vandalism then we place vandalism warning template. If you are not sure if the edit is vandalism edit or not, then place unsourced warnings template.

1. For new editors, we usually place level one warning template to educate the editor unless the edit is particularly serious vandalism edit such as content added/changed that is unsourced which would harm the subject (living) reputation - example "stupid gay man who have sex with children", or "He is an Islam and Islamic people are all jihadists". In such cases we can use Level 3/4 warnings even that is their first edit. The counter vandalism editor place the "warning level" as per their assessement of the edit of the editor. You will know which level to place once you have more experience on counter vandalism. However, we usually place level one first::::.

2. Promotional (adding spam links) content is particular strongly deter by by Wikipedia and editor will also be blocked from editing for such action. As for violation of copyright edit, we will warned the editor (single notice/warning template) and if the editor continuing to do so, then disruptive warning template can be placed on editor talk page.

3. Non-English - You can use Google translate see HERE translate to know the content/edit summary of non-English edit. If the content added is not harmful then revert it and place Template:Uw-lang-noteng template on the editor talk page. If the content added/changed is considered vandalism then warn the editor accordingly.

Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 08:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia thanks for the information, your feedback was really helpful and I am able to better identify disruptive editing vs vandalism. I'm ready to move on to the next assignment. Best VolatileAnomaly (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly Notes: 4. If you are not familiar with the subject and not sure about the edit, then pls do nothing and let other experienced counter vandalism editors to deal with that.

5. If you reverted an edit which you later find it is a mistake then pls self revert the edit asap. If you place the warning message to wrong editor, pls cross out/ remove the warning message on the editor talk page and send a message to apology.

6. Again, remember not to revert more than 3 times on the same page within 24 hours if the edit are not vandalism edits for you will be blocked for violation of 3RR. I have seen many counter vandalism editors revert more than 3 times due to disruptive edits or the IP editor simply trolling on edit summary but the troll is fall under vandalism in nature and got blocked. The counter vandalism editors got so upset for the have been doing good work for Wikipedia for a long time and spent so much of their time serving this project and they left Wikipedia for good. What we can do is to sending 3RR warning message to the editor on their 3rd edit and come back and check if other editor revert the edit and if the IP editor makes the same edit then report them to edit warrring notice board.

P.s let me know you have read note 4-6. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 07:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Just finished reading notes 4-6. I especially agreed that 3RR is a very important policy, which was why I chose not to get involved after the 3RR warning in Q16. In the future I will be sure to report similar incidents to the edit warring noticeboard.

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 VolatileAnomaly, 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. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 07:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, finished reading notes 4-6 and assignment 4, ready to move on. Best VolatileAnomaly (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2024 (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: Trolls and vandals often commit such acts because they seek attention. By not engaging with them we discourage them from future disruption.

good. 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 09:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: :I would evaluate the substance of the point they are trying to convey. Even though a good faith user may be frustrated at times, their concerns are ultimately grounded in a genuine desire to improve the wiki. Meanwhile, trolls would not be able to convey a meaningful message, instead using inflammatory language simply to provoke a reaction.

. We can check their contribution log and talk page to see the behaviour of the editor to understand the nature of their edits especially when we could not tell if it is a disruptive edits or just being no knowing how to edits/know the guidelines. Do note sometimes good faith editor do get upset when we reverted their edit and place a warning message and convey their message which might not be pleasant for your standard. Many times troll might not use personal attacks but being rude, condescending, put down, name calling and etc. 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 09:10, 12 November 2024 (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: Contact the Wikimedia foundation at emergency@wikimedia.org with a diff link (this will include time and location of threat). Also notify an admin privately through channels such as email or discord.

.

1. If it were a threat against you and if you think you are in immediate danger then contact your own local police station.

2. All threats (including the above) are to be notified by email to emergencywikimedia.org or if email is enables in your user account then simply click on Special:EmailUser/Emergency

3. Include the article or user page where the threat was made and a diff(s) of the edit(s) making the threat

4 Contact an admin with the same details

5 Request oversight to have the threats suppressed at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight

Cassiopeia talk 09:10, 12 November 2024 (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: Treat the claim as serious and report. Wikimedia foundation staff will make the ultimate evaluation.

. Cassiopeia talk 09:10, 12 November 2024 (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: Sockpuppetry includes logging out to make disruptive edits, creating new accounts for block evasion, and using another person's account. Suspected sockpuppets should be reported to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.

.

All forms of sock-puppetry are designed to deceive other users/admins and take the form of:

1. Logging out deliberately and using your IP to make a problmatic edits.

2. Creating an addidional unauthorised account or multiple accounts, usualy for block evading or vote stuffing or trying to avaoid 3 Revert Rule. The main account is the "Puppet Master" the others are the "Sock(s)"

3. The use of someone elses account (known as "Piggybacking")

4. Reviving an old disused "Sleeper" account

5. The persuasion of others to back your position in a discussion - "Meatpuppetry"

All forms of Sock Puupetry are to be reported to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and includes all hist diff where necessary and state the reasons. Cassiopeia talk 09:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi VolatileAnomaly, see assignment 5 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 08:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, answers for assignment 5 are ready for review. Best VolatileAnomaly (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly, Reviewed and see comments. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 09:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia thank you for the prompt review. I'm ready to move on to assignment 6. Best VolatileAnomaly (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly Pls note: If the editor continue trolling (on talk page) after you have explained the reasons and guidelines provided on their talk page then

(1) If the trolling falls under "personal attack" such as "Fuck you, you are stupid, any racist comments, legal threats and etc" then place an personal attack warning message on their talk page, and if the editor continues edit in the same manner, then report them to AIV.

(2) If the trolling is does not means to personal attack then just continuing explain the reasons in a "mechanical manner" and dont engage with other questions which has no relation to the issues and more important, "comment on the edit and not the editor". Once you have explain a few times and the editor would not stopping trolling and wants to drag the issues to other area, then just state you have explained the issue and that would be the last message sent.

(3) If you do a lot of counter vandalism work, you will face unpleasant messages from the editors who you place warning messages on their talk page, it could range from disgusting foul languages, racist and sexual comments, legal and physical harm threats, trolling and etc. If you find yourself feel angry or frustrated, then take a break for a coffee, a walk or take a day or weeks off from doing counter vandalism work.

Pls let me know you have read 1-3 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 20:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly Pls let me know you have read the above. Cassiopeia talk 02:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, I have read the above. Appreciate the tips for dealing with trolls and personal attacks. Best VolatileAnomaly (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2024 (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: When the page is repeatedly vandalized by anonymous and registered users (and some highly visible templates and modules)

. Semi-protection applies to pages that constantly attract a large amount of vandalism. Cassiopeia talk 08:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: When it's an infrequently edited page that contains numerous instances of vandalism, BLP violations, or content disputes from unregistered/new users.

. the key is low volume vandalism but persistence over a period of time (a few days to a few weeks).08:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: When the page is repeatedly disrupted or vandalized by extended confirmed users.

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

Answer: In the event of repeated recreation of a deleted page. Articles relating to BFDI being a well-known example.

. Cassiopeia talk 08:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: Article discussion pages may be semi protected in the event of persistent disruption. Such actions are used sparingly since it limits the ability of unregistered/new users to discuss the article.

. Cassiopeia talk 08:22, 23 November 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: Special:Diff/1253618963 Semiprotection of Skibidi due to repeated vandalism by different users. Page was later protected indefinitely due to previous history of vandalism and protections.

. Cassiopeia talk 08:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Answer ii: Special:Diff/1256291777 Semiprotection of C. Jay Cox due to vandalism from recent incident. Didn't realize it was severe BLP violation at the time. Numerous edits were later revdeled and oversighted.

. Cassiopeia talk 08:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD. Done

1. In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly state all the criteria in your own words?

Answer: In the event that a page unambiguously meets a speedy deletion criteria and has no chance of surviving a deletion discussion.

VolatileAnomaly Pls briefly state :all" the criteria in your own words. Cassiopeia talk 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Page is nonsense, misinformation, promotional, not notable or otherwise doesn't contribute constructively to Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia.

VolatileAnomaly I meant "list all the CSD" in your own words. Cassiopeia talk 04:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Hope this answer matches the intent of the question.

G1: incoherent/nonsense page.
G2: test page.
G3: page is misinformation/vandalism.
G4: previously deleted page (AfD)
G5: page created by sock
G6: deletion for maintenance
G7: deletion requested by page creator (provided there isn't significant contributions by others)
G8: page falls under deleted page (e.g talk page)
G9: page deleted by order of Wikimedia office
G10: only purpose of page is to attack/harass individual
G11: spam/promotional page
G12: page violates copyright
G13: draft deleted due to inactivity (>6 months)
G14: redundant disambiguation page (1 article)
A1: page has no identifiable subject
A2: Existing non-english article (other wikiprojects)
A3: Page has no encyclopedic content
A7: no mention of importance for subject of article (physical entity)
A9: no mention of importance for subject of article (musical recording)
A10: duplicate of existing page
A11: topic of article is original research/made up

. Cassiopeia talk 08:22, 23 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):

Draft:Zanjire

Special:Diff/1256313354 -Talk page notice

G11 (promotional content regarding Zanjire)

Also warned user multiple times for adding promotional content regarding Zanjire on other Wikipedia articles.

.Good. Cassiopeia talk 08:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Answer ii (copyvio):

Harshaw Chemical Co.

Special:Diff/1257885228

Special:Diff/1257885231-Talk page notice

G12 (copyvio of https://case.edu/ech/articles/h/harshaw-chemical-co and https://www.wsj.com/graphics/waste-lands/site/193-harshaw-chemical-co/)

. Well-done. Cassiopeia talk 08:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Answer iii (any criteria):

Draft:Tobii Dynavox

Special:Diff/1258342799

Special:Diff/1258342801-Talk page notice

G12 (copyvio of https://www.tobiidynavox.com/pages/about-us) attempt to correct ended up being close paraphrasing

. Cassiopeia talk 08:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Answer iv (any criteria):

Draft:Skibidiman77

Special:Diff/1258892188

Special:Diff/1258892189-Talk page notice

G2 (Test page)-contents were "I am Skibidiman77", draft was blocked from creation

. Cassiopeia talk 08:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly See assignment 6 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 21:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, I'm having a bit of trouble locating pages to protect and articles that satisfy CSD. Would it be ok to use previous page protections and CSD I requested, or should I continue to try and seek brand new requests? Thanks VolatileAnomaly (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly Thank you for letting me know. for copyvio and promo, you can check on new page - see here-New page or Article for creation (draft article) as copyvio content can easily be found there. As for other CSD, you search only on new page. Pls wait for 2 hours after the content is created before tagging for CSD as it gives the editor some time to work on the article. For article for protection (RPP), there are 2 situations an article can request for protection. (1) in a short time frame (same day) which IP editor vandalism a page or (2) editors (IP or not) vandalize/adding unsourced content/disruptive a page in 1-2 weeks where by the edits is few in number but persistence. In both cases, it has to be edited by "different" editors and not the same one. If the same editor vandalizes a page constantly, we report them to AIV. Look for popular event about to be happened such UFC events, they usually will be vandalized on the day of the event or some controversial results of the fights happen. You can click "the watchlist" button on top of the article, so you will be informed when the article is edited (if you set up to receive notification via email on your preference page). Most editors find CSD and RPP are hardest edits to find, but you will find them. Look at the edits especially on Fri, Sat night (US time). Cheers. Cassiopeia talk 03:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, hi, just to inform you that I have no landline Internet today and it looks like my there are some issues/ damages occurred due to the 2 week rain here. ( I am writing this message from my mobile and it is very difficult to review the assignment via mobile). thank you for your patience and I will do the reviewing when my Internet is up. my apologies. Cassiopeia talk 20:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia thank you for letting me know. I am still in the process of locating one last article for CSD so hopefully no rush from the both of us. Best VolatileAnomaly (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia wanted to inform you that I was able to locate the last article and am ready for review. Definitely no rush, hope your internet recovers soon! Best VolatileAnomaly (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly Reviewed - Well-done. Cassiopeia talk 08:22, 23 November 2024 (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: Doesn't seem to violate username policy, would leave alone.

. Cassiopeia talk 00:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

LMedicalCentre

Answer: Promotional username, report to Usernames for Administrator Attention

> 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 00:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

ColesStaff

Answer: Depends on context, may refer to a staff member of an organization called Cole (promotional) or a magical staff belonging to Cole(harmless). Would start by looking at user's contributions (e.g if they're making a page on an organization called Coles) and talking to user, then potentially opening a request for comment on username if necessary.

. This username also implies shared use, as one cannot be sure which staff members of "Coles" is using the account. Ask them to change their username. If they are breaching other policies, such as the conflict of interest policy, should consider reporting them to that noticeboard or UAA. Cassiopeia talk 00:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

~~~~

Answer: Misleading username, no need to report as creation not allowed for technical reasons (string of three or more tildes)

. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it. Cassiopeia talk 00:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Answer: Misleading username, no need to report as creation not allowed for technical reasons (looks like IP)

. This type username is automatically disallowed in Wikipedia now, thus you won't stumble across it. Cassiopeia talk 00:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Bieberisgay

Answer: Disruptive username, report to UAA

. This username is against the BLP policy, as the username attacks a living person - report to UAA. Cassiopeia talk 00:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly , See Assignment 7 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 21:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia ready for review, thank you so much! Best VolatileAnomaly (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly Reviewed. See comments. Well-done! Cassiopeia talk 00:49, 24 November 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 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: Clear vandalism + BLP issues

. Cassiopeia talk 04:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

Answer: WP:VANDAL and WP:BLP

. Cassiopeia talk 04:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{subst:uw-vandalism2} or {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} since it's pretty egregious

. Cassiopeia talk 04:19, 24 November 2024 (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, blatant vandalism is exempt from 3RR

. Cassiopeia talk 04:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{IPvandal}}, because user is an IP editor.

. Cassiopeia talk 04:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: If those are only edits from user, vandalism only account. Or else vandalism after final warning.

. Or you can add BLP vandalism edit. Cassiopeia talk 04:19, 24 November 2024 (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:I would assume good faith, since this is a new editor who may be making test edits

. Cassiopeia talk 04:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{subst:uw-test1}}

. Cassiopeia talk 04:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: Green, with an explanation of "test edits"

. Cassiopeia talk 04:19, 24 November 2024 (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: Not immediately, I would give them a level 4 warning first, then wait and see if they continue vandalizing before reporting to AIV.

. Cassiopeia talk 04:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes, but usually only after shorter blocks are given first.

. Cassiopeia talk 04:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{vandal}}

. Cassiopeia talk 04:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: Vandalism after final warning, assuming they vandalized after the level 4 warning I gave.

. Cassiopeia talk 04:19, 24 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.

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

Answer:Red-vandalism, since content is clearly promotional

If you do revert which warning template would you use?

Answer: {{subst:uw-advert1}}

. Cassiopeia talk 04:19, 24 November 2024 (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: Yes, I would CSD under G11-promotional content (similar to the Zanjire case) and G12-copyvio (copied text from website just like Tobii),

. Cassiopeia talk 04:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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-coi-username}} since there is also a conflict of interest regarding their username

. Cassiopeia talk 04:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes, for promotional username implying shared use

. Cassiopeia talk 04:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly See assignment 8 above. Cassiopeia talk 01:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia just finished assignment 8, ready for review whenever! Best VolatileAnomaly (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly. Reviewed. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 04:19, 24 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: (May be used): In cases of blatant and repeated vandalism, self reverts, or edits made by socks (with explanation if prompted).

. See below and pls read WP:Rollback

obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear
in your own userspace
you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made)
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)
widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation
2ith a custom edit summary explaining the reason for reverting the changes

Cassiopeia talk 23:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Answer: (Rollback may NOT be used): When reverting most other changes without explanation, in edit warring, or in reverting good faith edits. Also, when reverting disruptive text that require revdel, since default summary includes username (in cases of offensive/insulting usernames).

. Cassiopeia talk 23:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?

Answer: Revert the edit manually, with an edit summary indicating "Accidental use of rollback-self revert"

. good. Cassiopeia talk 23:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Answer: No, either revert manually or use Twinkle

. Cassiopeia talk 23:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly, See assignment 9 above. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 04:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia all set for assignment 9, ready for review. Thanks VolatileAnomaly (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly. Reviewed. See comments. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 23:27, 24 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.

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. This is the last assignment of the program and it will be follow by the final exam. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 23:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, I believe I have made more than 30 counter vandalism edits at this point. Am I free to continue doing anti-vandalism work, or should I wait until the monitoring period is over before continuing? Thanks VolatileAnomaly (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly Good day. Pls wait until the monitoring period is over. I will check your contribution log and if your counter vandalism edits deem satisfy then I will post the final exam questions to you. Cassiopeia talk 23:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia thanks for the response, I'll hold off on the anti-vandalism edits for now. Best VolatileAnomaly (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)