User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/EN-Jungwon

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

talk

) 06:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I've finished reading the content in this assignment and I'm ready for my next one. EN-Jungwon 06:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users

Harassment and trolling

Occasionally, some vandals will not appreciate your good work and try to

WP:DENY

.

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Answer: Trolls seek attention so by not engaging with them we deny them the recognition they want which would force them to stop.

Y. 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. If we need to answer certain question, do provide the answer in a mechanical manner without addressing the troll. If troll continues, then let the editor know that answer has been provide and not longer reply their message.

talk

) 04:39, 23 December 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: Good faith editors wont ask about personal information and would likely ask why I reverted their edits or for help with something they dont know. I would also check their talk page to see how the user responds to warnings given by other user.

Y. At times, to 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. To check on the editors past edits/talk page would help; however, the bottom line is that trolls want to annoy you and good faith editors annoyed at you and that is the subtle different.

talk

) 04:39, 23 December 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: All threats and self harm should be reported to the Wikimedia Foundation at emergencywikimedia.org or go to Special:EmailUser/Emergency. We should include the name of the page where the threat was made, or a diff. In addition to emailing the Wikimedia Foundation we can notify Wikipedia administrators privately using email, IRC, or other low-visibility methods.

Y.

talk

) 04:39, 23 December 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: Even if it sounds like a joke, all claims must be treated seriously and should be and should be reported to the Wikimedia Foundation and left for the Foundation staff to evaluate.

Y.

talk

) 04:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Sock pupperty

Please read

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

Answer:

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

If users shows a sign of sockpuppetry a report at should be created at

Y. When reporting to

talk

) 04:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi EN-Jungwon, see Assignment 5 above.

@Cassiopeia: I have finished assignment 5. EN-Jungwon 17:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi

talk

) 04:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Thanks for the detailed comments. I am ready for my next assignment. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. EN-Jungwon 05:37, 23 December 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

Protection

Please read the protection policy. Done

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

Answer: When there is significant amount of disruption or

biographies of living persons

who have had a recent high level of media interest.

Y.

talk

) 07:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: When pages get vandalized once in a while by

unregistered (IP addresses) editor or a new user

to edit the page but the edit won't be visible to Wikipedia readers until it is reviewed and accepted by a pending changes reviewer.

Y. Low volume but persistence vandalism over time/period (days or weeks).

talk

) 07:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Answer: When pages that have been deleted multiple times but gets repeatedly recreated. These can include bad or inappropriate page title.

Y.

talk

) 07:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: Due to very high levels of vandalism by IP or new users. A talk page of a blocked user who violates Wikipedia policy can also be protected to prevent them from editing their talk page

Y.

talk

) 07:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer i: Temporary semi-protection for List of awards and nominations received by Blackpink.

Y.

talk

) 07:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Answer ii: Indefinite semi-protection for SB19.

Y.

talk

) 07:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read

1. In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, briefly to go through the criteria?

Answer:

G1. Patent nonsense: This applies to pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history.

G2. Test pages: This applies to pages created to test editing or other Wikipedia functions.

G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes: This applies to pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism.

G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent

deletion discussion

.

G5. Creations by banned or blocked users: This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others.

G6. Technical deletions: This is for uncontroversial maintenance.

G7. Author requests deletion: If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author.

G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page: Examples include:

• Talk pages
  with no corresponding subject page
• Subpages
  with no parent page
• File pages
  without a corresponding file
• Redirects to targets that never existed or were deleted
• Unused editnotices of non-existent or unsalted deleted pages
• Categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates

G9. Office actions: In exceptional circumstances, the Wikimedia Foundation office reserves the right to speedy-delete a page.

G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose: Examples of "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced.

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion: This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements.

G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement: This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a

compatible free license

, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving.

G13. Abandoned Drafts and Articles for creation submissions: Any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:

1. Draft namespace,
2. AFC submission
   }} template
3. Userspace with no content except the
   article wizard
   placeholder text.

G14. Unnecessary disambiguation pages: This applies to the following disambiguation pages:

• Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page
• Regardless of title, disambiguation pages that disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages.
• A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function.

Y.

talk

) 07:23, 18 February 2021 (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):

CSD G11) Notified creator. CSD log

Y.

talk

) 07:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Answer ii (copyvio):

CSD G12) Notified creator. CSD log

Answer iii (No context, No indication of importance, Unambiguous advertising or promotion):

CSD G11) Notified creator. CSD log

Y.

talk

) 07:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Answer iv (No context):

CSD A1) Notified creator. CSD log

Y.

talk

) 07:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 05:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

talk

) 23:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, apologies for taking so long. I am having trouble answering the second question above. Haven't been able to find anything for part 1 and 2. EN-Jungwon 06:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 07:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 00:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have finished this assignment and sorry for taking so long. I kind of forgotten about this. I'll try to quickly and efficiently complete my assignments from now on. EN-Jungwon 16:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 07:23, 18 February 2021 (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
  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.

talk

) 07:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have finished this assignment. EN-Jungwon 16:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 01:09, 20 February 2021 (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

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: If it's unsourced then I would consider it to be vandalism.

Y. Unsourced content added is not considered vanslism and they can be removed. However, adding adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons what would violet

talk

) 04:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

Answer:

Y.

talk

) 04:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} and increase warning level after every revert

Y. Alternative {{

talk

) 04:00, 6 March 2021 (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. As this is a BLP and since the edits by the user were libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy I would be exempt from the 3RR per

Y.

talk

) 04:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{subst:uw-test1}}

Y.

talk

) 04:00, 6 March 2021 (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-AGF (Green) as the edits were in good faith

Y.

talk

) 04:00, 6 March 2021 (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: No. As the user has not received a level 4 or a 4im warning.

Y.

talk

) 04:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes. If the user has received a level 4 or 4im warning and keeps vandalizing then the editor can be blocked indefinitely.

Y.

talk

) 04:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: {{vandal}} as this is a registered user.

Y.

talk

) 04:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: Vandalism after final (level 4 or 4im) warning given or Evidently a vandalism-only account.

Y.

talk

) 11:39, 7 March 2021 (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: Yes. I would use the Rollback (Blue) as the user is clearly making promotional edits.

Y.

talk

) 04:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• If you do revert which warning template would you use?

Answer: {{subst:uw-advert1}} or {{subst:uw-spam1}}

Y.

talk

) 04:00, 6 March 2021 (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.

Y.Good.

talk

) 04:00, 6 March 2021 (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|Laptops Inc}}

Y.

talk

) 04:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: Since the user was making promotional edits I would report them for "Promotional username".

Y.

talk

) 04:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 01:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have finished this assignment. EN-Jungwon 05:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 04:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I just realized that you had not reviewed the last answer on Scenario 2. EN-Jungwon 11:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 11:39, 7 March 2021 (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'

1. To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear
2. To revert edits in your own userspace
3. To revert edits that you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made)
4. To revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban (but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to)
5. To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page

Y.

talk

) 11:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Answer: Rollback may not be used:

1. When reverting good-faith edits.
2. When you are want to give a custom edit summary
3. In content dispute
4. To edit war

Y.

talk

) 11:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?

Answer: Revert your edit manually, with an edit summary like "Self-revert accidental use of rollback". Alternatively you can follow the rollback with a dummy edit, with an edit summary like "Accidental use of rollback – reason for reversion"

Y.

talk

) 11:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer: No. Since the rollback feature doesn't allow custom edit summaries

Y.

talk

) 11:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 04:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, for the first question part 2 shouldn't it be "Rollback should not be used:" EN-Jungwon 14:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 08:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have finished this assignment. EN-Jungwon 10:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 11:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, what about the other answers? EN-Jungwon 11:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 11:25, 7 March 2021 (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.

talk

) 11:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 01:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia,  Done. Is it possible to postpone my final exam since I would be really busy for the next two weeks due to real life exams. Thanks. EN-Jungwon 09:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 02:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

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: Give the user a {{subst:uw-test1}} as it is their first edit.

Answer 2: Give the user a {{

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: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} as the user has already been warned for adding signatures to articles.

Answer 4: Give the user a {{

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: {{subst:uw-npov1}} if the user adds it to an article about John Smith or {{subst:uw-subtle1}} if they add it to other articles.

Answer 6: Increase the level of warning and if the user adds it after getting a final warning then report to

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

Answer 7: As this is their first edit I would give them {{subst:uw-test1}}.

Answer 8: Increase level of warning. If the user keeps adding it to articles then report to

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: Firstly I would go through the source that was cited for the information and check if it is actually wrong. If the source has no mention of the information removed by the editor then I would not do anything about it. If the source mentions does mention the information that the editor removed then I would give them a {{subst:uw-delete1}}.

Answer 10: Increase the level of warning {{

Answer 11: Even if the user has had a history of positive contributions removing sourced content (without discussion) after final warning would be considered as vandalism.

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

Answer 12: Give the user {{subst:uw-delete1}} and increase the warning level if the user keeps blanking the entire page.

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

Answer 13: I would go through the reference to see whether it is actually relevant or not. If the source supports the content that was removed then I would revert and give the user {{subst:uw-delete1}}.

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: Immediately email [email protected] and contact an administrator using a low visibility method or email the oversight team to suppress the revision.

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

Answer 15: Immediately email [email protected] and contact an administrator using a low visibility method or email the oversight team to suppress the revision.

Part 2 (15%)

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

1. A user blanks Cheesecake

Answer 1: {{subst:uw-delete1}} for their first warning. If the user already has a level 1 warning for the current month then I would give them a higher warning level.

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

Answer 2: {{subst:uw-attempt1}} for their first warning. If the user already has a level 1 warning for the current month then I would give them a higher warning level.

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

Answer 3: {{subst:uw-efsummary}}.

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

Atlanta Airport

Answer 4: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} for their first warning. If the user already has a level 1 warning for the current month then I would give them a higher warning level.

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

Answer 5: {{subst:uw-delete1}} for their first warning. If the user already has a level 1 warning for the current month then I would give them a higher warning level.

6. A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.

Answer 6: {{subst:uw-test1}} if its their first edit. If the user has been previously warned for making test edits I would give them a {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}.

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

Answer 7: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} for their first warning. If the user already has a level 1 warning for the current month then I would give them a higher warning level.

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

Answer 8: {{subst:uw-biog1}} for their first warning. If the user already has a level 1 warning for the current month then I would give them a higher warning level.

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

Answer 9: {{

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

Answer 10: Report them to

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

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

Answer 12: {{subst:uw-image1}} for their first warning. If the user already has a level 1 warning for the current month then I would give them a higher warning level.

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: Revert and report to

14. A user adds "Italic text to Sydney

Answer 14: If its a new user give them a {{

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

Answer 15: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}.

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

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: {{

2. Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.

Answer 2: {{

3. Joe goes to England and comes home !

Answer 3: {{

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

Answer 4: {{

5. Fuck Wiki!

Answer 5: {{

What would you do in the following circumstance:

6. A user blanks a page they very recently created

Answer 6: {{

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

Answer 7: The user might have removed the tag as they still want to edit the page, so I would not tag it again.

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: Restore the {{

Answer 2: Temporary semi-protection for List of Music Bank Chart winners (2021). Semi protected for 2 months. Protection log.

Answer 3: Temporary semi-protection for GFriend. Semi protected for 4 days. Protection log.

Answer 4:

Answer 5: Temporary pending changes for Iz*One. Semi protected for 2 weeks and pending changes protected for 3 months. Protection log. Pending changes log.

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: Good faith edit: Special:Diff/1036217915. Gave the user {{subst:WelcomeMenu}} Special:Diff/1036219473.

Answer 7: Self revert test edit:

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: Draft:UK Mover Ltd. CSD log entry. Deletion log.

Answer 11 copyvio violation: Draft:FLOWERS OF INDIA. CSD log entry. Deletion log.

Answer 12 copyvio violatio: Draft:HMS Lawford (1913). CSD log entry. Deletion log.

Answer 13 Your choice: A7 and G11 Junaed Ahmad Emran. CSD log entry. Deletion log.

Answer 14 Your choice: G2 Draft:Caca prout. CSD log entry. Deletion log.

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

Answer 15: Ssplastforming (talk · contribs) Reported as a Promotional username. Block log.

Answer 16: Fxbrokersempire (talk · contribs) Reported as a Promotional username. Block log.

Answer 17: Thewestore (talk · contribs) Reported as a Promotional username. Block log.

Answer 18: Cranesmart (talk · contribs) Reported as a Promotional username. Block log.

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

Answer 19: Edit warring doesn't help when attempting to resolve disputes. In fact, engaging in such behavior will usually inflame the dispute, and poison the environment Wikipedia editors all share making it much more harder to resolve the dispute.

Answer 20: Edit warring occurs when users who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly reverts other users edit to keep their preferred version published on Wikipedia.

Answer 21:

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

Answer 21: Since these articles are about living people human dignity and personal privacy should be taken into account when adding information to it. Unsourced content should be removed. Persistent BLP violations should be reported to

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

Answer 22: Ignore them and

Answer 23: Since they seek recognition it is best to deny recognition and not engage with them.

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

Answer 24: Semi protection is applied to pages due to vandalism or disruptive edits by unregistered or non autoconfirmed users to only allow autoconfirmed users to edit. Full protection is applied to pages due to content dispute or edit warring between extended confirmed users to only allow admins to edit.

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

Answer 25: Personal attacks are disruptive and make it more difficult for editors to work together. In extreme cases users may leave Wikipedia and it may also discourage new users from joining making it harmful for the community.

talk

) 02:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, Part 4 question 10 seems to have been answered by you. EN-Jungwon 17:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 09:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, for part 6 question 8 & 9 should I report them to ANI or AN3. EN-Jungwon 11:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 22:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)