User talk:Mz7/CVUA/CASSIOPEIA

@Mz7: I have finished exercise, kindly have a look and comment. Thank youCASSIOPEIA (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 1: Good faith and vandalism

@Mz7: Thank you for your feedback and comments. Understand that some users might not know the BLP guidelines and policies and removing the tags, but this user [1] has done that in the past (see below 3 examples) after had informed the tags validation still exist. Should it be only consider the user act was intentional or he was still considered a new user who might not aware of his actions? I just want to understand further the "intention" vs "good faith" editing here. Thanks in advance for your assisting.

1. [2]user had removed of BLP tag and has informed tag still valid here ([3])

2. [4] - removing BLP tag

3. [5] - removed of Proposing article for deletion tag

CASSIOPEIA (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: None of these are vandalism. I think you've set up a false dilemma here between an intentional act of vandalism and a new user who might not aware of his actions. Even the best of us are allowed to have lapses in judgment from time to time, and good-faith editors who have been here for a while can still be disruptive. In each of the above cases, I would assume that the user genuinely believed what they were doing would be beneficial (though they were probably wrong for both of the BLP tags). Instead of treating the edits like vandalism, you should have treated them as good-faith edits with which you disagree. Start a discussion on the user's user talk page. Tell them politely that you disagreed with their action and give your reasons carefully. Then listen respectfully to what they have to say. This is what Wikipedia collaboration should be all about. It's not enough to just revert and think the other user will understand you.

The bottom line is that vandalism should be unambiguous. In cases where there is any reasonable doubt, the default should be to assume good faith. Mz7 (talk) 06:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thank you for the advice above that communication among editors in talk page is needed to be established on subject issues first to inform and set up better understanding unless it is clear vandalism edit then 1st warning tag could be assigned.

I would like to ask a "IF" scenario question (not the above user): Should after a communication has set up on the editor's talk page and edit summary and receive no reply from editor. If the editor continues to do the same action (removing of BLP / deletion tag) in later date, we could establish the bad intention here and send the 1st warning to the editor's talk page. Kindly advise if the above is the right action to be taken. Thanks in advance.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: No, I still don't think it would be enough to establish a bad intention, but it might be enough to establish a pattern of disruptive editing that might be actionable by administrators. I would first try communicating again, and if they continue refusing to discuss, I would ask administrators to intervene at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (often abbreviated to WP:ANI). A relevant advice page that may be helpful here is Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss. The line for bad-faith vandalism comes when a user is clearly deceptive, perhaps lying about what they were doing. A refusal to "get the point" does not necessarily indicate bad intentions, though it is disruptive. I'm mostly hesitant to call this particular user a vandal because it is typically clear from a vandal's other edits that they aren't here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and it isn't clear to me at all here. Mz7 (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thank you for the advice. Further questions

I notice that on WP:VANDNOT, unsourced edits, which is not considered vandalism but destructive, should be removed from the article immediate. The reason of the removal should be stated in the edit summary and/or communicate to editor on his/her user page talk page. However, I also notice on WP:WARN2 there are 4 unsourced warning template (Uw-unsourced1|uw-unsourced1). Kindly advice further of above and how to used the unsouced template appropriately. Thank you.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Learning about warnings is actually the next part of the course. The templated messages {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} up to {{subst:uw-unsourced4}} are convenient for informing new editors on their talk page that their initial efforts have been reverted because they were unsourced. If you have no further questions about the difference between good-faith and bad-faith, I can post the next batch of assignment questions for you. Mz7 (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: OK , let's move on to the next assignment.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 2 - Warning and reporting

@Mz7: I have done assignment # 2. Kindly review and thank you. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 3

@Mz7: I have done assignment # 3. Kindly review and thank you.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Excellent. I'll try to get it reviewed by the end of today or early tomorrow. Mz7 (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thank you for the review and comments. Appreciate it as it further my understanding of of a vandalized edit vs disruptive (unsourced edit) is based on intention of the editor. I have a few questions below regarding your comments and the assignment 3.

1.WP:CV vs WP:Copy-paste: (a) What percentage of a source which is copy and paste to an article is constituted Copyright violation? My understanding from Wikipedia News, is that more 4 consequences words identical from the source, except names of person, position, event, document and etc of that sort) is considered in violation of copy right. (b) what is the different and how do we distinguish copy right violation and copy and paste violation in Wikipedia?

2.Notable person on accused of crime - If a notable person was arrested for KO someone in the bar (well sourced), it would be ok to be included in the article as long as we put the word "alleged" before the verb (knock out etc) prior the court has determined the crime of the notable person?

3. Should a notable person chanted racist or homophobic remarks and it was well sourced, it should be considered appropriate to be included in the article? My understanding is that on policies of WP:NPOV we would state the well source info even if the info might not be welcomed by other editors. Kindly inform if my understanding is incorrect.

CASSIOPEIA (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: These are excellent questions. I'll answer them one-by-one.

1. (a) There is no specific rule which describes how much of a source needs to be copied in order for it to be considered a copyright violation. There needs to be enough of the source copied that it is clear that the user is not writing using their own words, but instead taking from another. It is not necessarily 4 consecutive words. Note that it is okay, however, to quote limited passages from other works, as long as it is clear that they are quotations of other works.
   (b) A "copyright violation" is an infringement on someone's legal rights that is caused by the use of someone's work without their permission. Oftentimes copyright violations take the form of editors copying and pasting content from a website, etc., without that website's permission.
2. Not necessarily. WP:BLPCRIME advises that if the subject of the article is low-profile, perhaps because they are mostly outside of public view, we should avoid listing crimes unless they have been widely reported in reliable sources and a conviction is secured. An arrest ≠ a conviction, so I would wait, unless you can show that the high-profile—see WP:PUBLICFIGURE for how we determine that. Mz7 (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
3. If I'm understanding your question correctly, we have a subject who has made racist and/or homophobic remarks that have been documented by reliable sources, and you are wondering whether it is appropriate to include those in the article. The answer is maybe. It always depends on the specific case at hand. WP:NPOV does state that we should represent all significant viewpoints on a subject without editorial bias, but to also do so proportionately, without assigning undue weight on an aspect, positive or negative. Ask at an article's talk page if you are not sure. The neutral point of view noticeboard is also an option.

Let me know if any of this strikes you as confusing.Mz7 (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thank you so much for taking the time to explain and advice me on the above. Apologize for not wording the question 3 well, but you have understood me and answered my question. Thank you. I am really for next read up and assignment. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Great. The next assignment is actually just a bit of reading on shared IP tagging and various tools that might assist you in countervandalism. Let me know if you have questions. Mz7 (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 4 - Read up - Shared IP tagging and tools

@Mz7:, I have read the topics as provided and I have a few questions.

1.Shared IP tagging - Do we have to find out which IP of the use of either gov,edu, corp, and etc when we need to warm user when they vandalize a page. I normally use Twinkle to tag when I work on vandalism tasks in Wikipedia.

2. in Special:Log/newusers mentions that editing under a username which represents an individual cannot be a violation unless they appear to be impersonating a notable living person - This user user:Alexander Gustafsson uses a notable living person Alexander Gustafsson as his username. Does the user violates the WP:USERNAME policy?

3. I have downloaded STiki and Huggle, however, I cant use it as I dont have Rollback right. Under the WP:PERM guideline, I believe I am eligible and I would like to request for the rollback right.

4.What is the different login Huggle using Wikipedia user name vs using Bot password? if use Bot password, could my edits/taggings be appeared in my user contribution list for tracking?

Happy weekend.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: I'll try to answer your questions within the next day or so. Mz7 (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA:

1. Shared IP tagging is optional. If you look at the bottom of an IP address's user talk page or contributions page, you'll notice a box which looks like this that contains a number of links related to that IP address. If you follow the "WHOIS" link, you'll be taken to a page that lists information about that IP address, such as the organization it is registered to and/or its internet service provider. If you suspect that an IP may belong to a school, you can use this to verify your suspensions – a school might list the school district name in the "OrgName" field of the WHOIS report. Twinkle has an option to tag shared IPs for you – it's the "Shared IP" option of the Twinkle dropdown menu. Again, this is optional, and you don't have to worry about it if you don't want to. Most of the shared IP tags are actually used fairly rarely, such as the government one or the {{dynamic IP}} one.
2. Hmm, I'm not sure because I'm not very familiar with the subject. If the user really is that person, it would be helpful for him to send verification of his identity to OTRS at info-enwikimedia.org just as a preemptive measure to avoid being blocked for impersonation, but as an administrator, I would follow WP:UPOL#Consider leaving well enough alone and leave it alone, unless he is causing serious problems with the name.
3. There is a particular moment in the course where I will encourage you to apply for rollback, and we haven't reached that part of the course just yet. You can apply for rollback at any time at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, and another administrator can look at your request. In the context of this course, however, I wanted to discuss page protection and speedy deletion (which are oftentimes alternatives to blocking/reporting at AIV) with you before granting you rollback. That's the next part of the course. Based on my discussions with other administrators who grant rollback, I get the feeling that they're getting leery of granting Huggle access to users without first making sure they're aware of alternatives to AIV reporting, since AIV has been getting backlogged frequently lately.
4. "Bot passwords" are something of a misnomer, since they aren't just for bots. They are application-specific passwords that you can set up at Special:BotPasswords that allow applications like Huggle limited access Wikipedia's API, but not the web interface. The benefit is to that if a bot password is stolen, the attacker wouldn't be able to use the password to hijack your account by changing your main password. Another benefit is that it allows administrators who have enabled two-factor authentication to use Huggle and other applications that don't yet support two-factor authentication. More information can be found at this page. Regardless of whether you use bot passwords, all actions you take with Huggle, including warnings and reverts, will be publicly logged in Special:Contributions/CASSIOPEIA for others to review.

Hope this helps. If any of this strikes you as confusing, please don't hesitate to let me know and I would be happy to clarify. Mz7 (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions and it helps further my understanding. Appreciate it. OK, I am ready for next read up and assignment. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: I've posted it. Mz7 (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 4:Protection and speedy deletion - discussion 1

@Mz7: I have done the assignment. Kindly review and thank you.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thank you for reviewing the assignment and understand that WP:CSD could be applied for a articles have created after the users had been blocked. And thank you for the tip for request for protection on the drop down menu in Twinkle.

Questions:

1. WP:SOCK - I know that we could check the unregistered users IP address by click on WHOIS or Geolocate:

(a) how could we check if the same user using diff IP addresses to vandalize (edits) a page/pages?

(b) if a registered user not logging in and using an IP address to edit and vandalize a page, is that anywhere we could find out?

2.I understand the criteria for WP:CSD. Questions

(a) WP:BLPPROD - should only apply to if the article has no source (reference or external links) - Should we check for them if there are references in the internet prior tag WP:BLPPROD (in another words, should new page reviewer ( I recently granted the right) check for the user and if find the source and cite for user?

(b) WP:PROD - what are some of the reasons/examples to request such proposal if the article does not violate WP:CSD?

(c)In the drop-down list from Twinkle there is WP:AFD - I thought the AFD is a place of discussion where WP:BLPPROD was tag in an article to get a consensus decision on "go or no go" on deleting of an article. Kindly advise.

3. New page without source for non-living person article. If a new page (accessed) contain no source, patrollers usually tag the page "no source" instead of [[WP:BLPPROD]. What happens to the article after this tag? I thought any edit without the support of source should be removed immediately. Kindly advise.

Thank you in advance for your assistance of the above. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: I apologize for the length of this response. I tend to get excited and get carried away... You ask good questions.

Your understanding that WP:CSD could be applied for a articles have created after the users had been blocked is not entirely correct (unless I am misunderstanding you, of course). As I stated in my original feedback WP:CSD#G5 only applies to articles created by blocked users while they are blocked, not just any time after they have been blocked once. At the very moment they pushed the "submit" button and created a page on Wikipedia, they must have currently been under a block on another account.

1. (a) There is no straightforward technical way of knowing which IP addresses an individual unregistered user has used. You can generally tell, however, by behavior. If you notice similar behavior coming from different IP addresses, geolocated to about the same geographic region, you can be reasonably sure that it is the same person.
   (b) If a registered user logs out to vandalize Wikipedia as an IP address, one way we can determine this is through comparing the behavior of the registered account to the IP address; if there is a specific disruptive behavior idiosyncratic to the user account, we may be able to connect an IP address to the account if the IP address exhibits similar behavior.
   If there is reason to suspect that a registered user has committed sock puppetry, logging out to vandalize Wikipedia could possibly be verified by a CheckUser (in accordance with Wikimedia's privacy policy, CheckUsers will generally decline to publicly connect a registered account to a specific IP address, but they may be able to state in general terms that a registered user has "logged out to vandalize".). To request such an investigation, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations (SPI) – Twinkle has the ability to create SPI reports for you (in the "ARV" option). Please be aware that sockpuppetry is a very serious accusation, and you must have especially strong evidence that sockpuppetry occurred in order to open an investigation. Accusing an editor of sockpuppetry with weak or insufficient evidence can be seen as a form of personal attack and can lead to yourself being sanctioned if you are not careful.
2. (a) This is an excellent question. Yes, in my view, it would be very good practice for you, as a new page reviewer, to go onto the Internet and perform a basic search for sources if a BLP you are reviewing lacks sources. If you find such a source, then by all means go ahead cite it for the user. Improving the article directly is better than tagging the issue any day, in my opinion. If your efforts reveal no citable sources, then you may tag BLPPROD.
   (b) To familiarize yourself with common reasons for why a page might be deleted outside of the criteria for speedy deletion, I encourage you to spend time reading recent Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions and participating in a few yourself. AfD could always use more input, and it's a great way to contribute in a behind-the-scenes role on Wikipedia while learning about policies and guidelines. For a boring list of possible deletion reasons, see WP:DEL-REASON. The most common reason is that an article's subject fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
   (c) I mentioned AfD in my answer to 2(b) above. If an article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, the article can still be deleted if there is a consensus reached to delete at an AfD deletion discussion. If you nominate an article to AfD, it will be placed a log that is patrolled by other users (you can see today's log here), where they may comment on the nomination, expressing opinions for or against deletion. After a seven-day period, if there is a consensus to delete the article at the discussion, an administrator will delete the article. If not, then the article will be kept.
   If you believe that a deletion nomination is uncontroversial, meaning you believe that no one would oppose the deletion request, and the article does not fall under the criteria for speedy deletion, then you may use the "proposed deletion" process, which places a simple tag on the article, and if no editor removes the PROD tag, then it will be deleted. PROD tags can be removed by any editor with or without any reason – if the tag is removed, the article is no longer eligible for PROD, and you will have to use AFD to delete the article. All of this is explained in-depth at Wikipedia:Deletion process – if you are confused, let me know and I would happy to clarify anything further.
3. When dealing with articles about living persons, you are correct that unsourced controversial material should be removed immediately. However, when you are dealing with a subject that is not living, the time after which unsourced content should be removed can vary. Per WP:UNSOURCED: Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. After you tag the article, it will sit there until an interested editor decides to take the time to do the research and provide the sources requested. If you have looked and you believe that no sources even exist about a particular subject, then that may be a reason you might want to start a deletion discussion on that article at AfD.

Mz7 (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 4:Protection and speedy deletion - discussion 2

@Mz7: Thank you for taking time to answer my questions and please do not appologies for the lengthy answers (it is better in such way that clarity and details are provided) which is much appreciated for I have wanted to seek advice for better understanding for some time. I am glad and fortunate to have you as my mentor to guide me and time spent on advising on such topics.

WP:CSD#G5 Banned editor - My understanding is same as yours and appologies for not stated clearly. I have tagged wrongly once as editor submitted a page prior his/her banned was raised. To make sure and clarify, if an editor was banned twice, say: (1) 14:00 June 1, 2017 to 14:00 June 7, 2017 and (2) 15:00 September 1, 2017 to 15:00 March 1, 2018: Any new page created (as of date in the first submission of the article created which indicated in the diff history page) between the banned date is considered WP:CSD#G5 voilation, and any submission outside the dates, say 4:00 March, 2017 or 4:00 July 2, 2017 would be considered NON CSD violation.

I have some other questions regarding info needed as a new page reviewer related topics and I put them into new section below. I understand this is not part of the Counter Vandalism program and it is ok if you would not prefer to answer them. However, either way, I thank you in advance.

@CASSIOPEIA: Yes, an article created by your user between (1) 14:00 June 1, 2017 to 14:00 June 7, 2017, and (2) 15:00 September 1, 2017 to 15:00 March 1, 2018, would fall under WP:CSD#65. Anything else would not. I'll take a look at your new page reviewing questions presently. Mz7 (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thank you. I am now ready to read and work on the next assignment. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism cum Patroller

@Mz7: Thank in advance if you could answer the questions below:

WP:YTCOPYRIGHT : This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright. My understanding is that YouTube would be used as a source (just as a newspaper) but care for copyright violation should be take into consideration for editors need to use their own words to place the content into an article. Pls advise if my understanding is correct.

1. If an unsourced article (for non-living person/things/event/org and etc) (a)has been reviewed by patroller and tag "unsourced", what is the next step an admin would do about the article? would it go as published (as accessed) with the unsourced tag and content remain in the article or the admin will raise PROD or AFD?

(b)has been either tagged or no yet tag with "unsouced" in the article and yet to be reviewed by either the partroller /admin, the article (unsouced with tag or not) will remained in Wikipedia until such a time it has been reviewed. Kindly advised if my assessment is correct.

2. (a)Reliable source: my understand that IMDb can not considered a source, but org (such as sport association/federation/club/gov and etc sites) is considered a source for athletes/service man in politics/defense force. Kindly advise if my understanding is right.

(b) If only single source indicated on the above and no other source is provided, could the article be acceptable by just tag "one one source is provide / more reliable source is needed". If not, what is the correct assessment?

3. Assisting in new page: As gather from what you indicated, a new page reviewer would help on citing source but ,if possible, help on category, and general clean up than just placing the tags. However, if not possible or luck of ability to do so, then tag the page accordingly and other editors could come along and assist. Pls advise if my understanding is correct.

Thank you CASSIOPEIA (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA:

1. (a) By policy, Wikipedia articles are allowed to be imperfect. If an article has been reviewed by a patroller and tagged with {{unsourced}}, the article will remain this way indefinitely – until an interested editor decides to improve it. An article will only be deleted if there is a reason to do so (merely being unsourced is not a reason to delete an article), and anyone, not just admins, can raise a PROD or AFD. I'm not sure what you mean by go as published (as accessed). The moment that a user creates a page, it is considered published, regardless of whether it has been reviewed.
   (b) I'm sorry, I'm not sure whether I understand you here. Editors submit new articles to Wikipedia, and new page reviewers will review them and tag them if they have issues. Between the moment the article is created and the moment the article is reviewed, the article is still accessible to anyone with an Internet question. The act of marking an article as reviewed simply takes it off of the list of articles needing to be reviewed. (Reviewing also indexes the articles so that it is visible by search engines, but that's a different matter.)
2. (a) Yes, IMBb is generally not considered a reliable source because it consists largely of user-generated content, meaning it is openly-editable by any user of the website with little editorial oversight. An official source from a sport association/federation/club/gov may be reliable, but it depends on the organization. The best sources to use for Wikipedia articles are third-party, secondary sources. Third-party means that the source is independent of the subject itself, and secondary means that the source provides an author's thinking one step removed from an event – see WP:SECONDARY for a better explanation.
   (b) It really depends on the article. Sometimes, an article only uses one source to support one piece of information, leaving other pieces of information unsourced. That's typically problematic, and I would tag {{ref improve}}. However, sometimes an article uses one really good source to support a lot of different pieces of information – that's probably fine (unless, of course, there are other viewpoints not being expressed).
3. The new page reviewer's primary goal is to just review a page to check whether it meets the minimum standards for a Wikipedia article. A new page patroller is not technically obligated to help improve the article beyond placing tags and marking as reviewed, but in my view, that's good practice. If you find that you lack the ability to assist in a page, you don't have to assist. (All of this information should be available at Wikipedia:New pages patrol – I would reread that page so that you ensure you understand the role of the new page reviewer on Wikipedia.)

Mz7 (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thank you for answering my questions and sorry for confusing you as I meant "unassessed" instead of "accessed". I raised the above questions as I noticed and was comparing the slight differences between policies/standard practice of Wikipedia and Wiki News. For Wiki News, they employs very strict codes to determine if a article should be published and I didnt know even they are under same "Wiki banner" but have different practices. From my understanding, att Wiki news (1) any unsouced content will be deleted immediately and let a alone be reviewed, (2) no articles will be published if it is not reviewed by admin and signed off they approval,(3) copyright violation limit to max 4 words in consecutive as of the source, (4) choice of words use/copy editing places an important role of the article among other things, and (5) furthermore any articles are yet to review after 5 days of their creation will be purged as they deem not new. As now I understand by policy, Wikipedia articles are allowed to be imperfectfor it is all makes sense now. Once again, thank you very much clarify the above questions. Appreciate it!

CASSIOPEIA (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 5: Username

@Mz7: Hi, I have finished the assignment (Username). Kindly review and thank you Mz7. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7:Good day. Thank you for the review and feedback. Appreciate it. No question for this assignment after review. I am ready to move to next assignment. Thank you Mz7. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 6: Progress test

@Mz7:, Good day. I have done assignment 6: Progress test. Kindly review and thank you.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC) @Mz7:,I have answered the question which I had missed out. Please review and thank you.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 7: Rollback

@Mz7:, Good day. I have done assignment 7: Rollback. Kindly review and thank you.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7:, Thank you for the review. Ready for the next assignment. Once again, thank you for the explanation of Crystal ball. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Assignment 8: Monitoring Period

@Mz7:, I will be intransit/flying tommorrow and may be have another trip in a week time, for such I might not able to edit. If you need to extend the monitoring period, kindly do so. Thank you.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: That's totally fine. I'm actually planning to be busy starting tomorrow as well (very little on-wiki time, if at all), so this works perfectly. Mz7 (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7:, Hi,I have a question.

Your comment "Yep, you just copied and pasted straight from the guideline there" for the rollback question I provided

(a) as Wiki content is not owned by anyone (please correct me if I have mistaken, for such have I committed any copyright violation here?

(b) if the above answer is NO then your comment is because I didnt show my understanding of the answer as I didnt put on my own words?

CASSIOPEIA (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Whoops, I didn’t mean to imply any wrongdoing on your part. I don’t think you’ve committed any copyright violation (the relevant guideline is WP:CWW, if you’re curious), and although I think it would have been better to have put it in your own words, I know that at least you know where to find out what the appropriate use of rollback is. I realize now that I may have come off as snarky, so I apologize for that.

Just for full transparency, normally at this stage in the course I would recommend you to apply for rollback. In this case, I know you recently broke the three-revert rule on an article, and an administrator reviewing at PERM will probably see that. As far as knowledge of the policy goes, I think you’re ready for rollback, but I would spend your 7-day monitoring period applying that knowledge toward some solid counter-vandalism work: patrolling recent changes, warning vandals appropriately, reporting vandals when necessary, etc. Only afterwards would I apply for rollback. For the record, I don’t think the 3RR violation has seriously ruined your chances, since you were never blocked and were able to realize your mistake afterwards; this is just so that the first thing a reviewing administrator sees isn’t a 3RR violation. (I don’t feel comfortable granting it to you myself because as your CVUA instructor I may be seen as too involved.) You are not obligated to follow my advice, however; if you believe you are ready now, you may apply to WP:PERM/R. Mz7 (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7:, Thank you for the reply and info. Appreciate it.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Hi, I came across an editor username User:Hihihihihi123321jdhjhfjh that might fall under WP:UNCONF when I worked on the counter vandalism work in Wikipedia. Kindly advise if my assessment is correct and if so, then I will send a message to the editor to request him/her to change his/her username. Thanks in advance Mz7. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Well, after I sent you the message, I found out that the user was blocked indefinitely. Anyhow, I still would get your advise if the username is categorized under WP:UNCONF. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: I'm personally lenient with these kinds of usernames, but I can see the argument for why it might be considered under WP:UNCONF, since it's lengthy and rather random. However, I would have blocked mainly for the vandalism/disruptive editing, not the username. As WP:UNCONF notes, such usernames are not so inappropriate on their own as to require action, but can be indicative of other problems, such as vandalism. Mz7 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: OK thank you for your advice. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Final Exam

@Mz7: Hi, I would like to drop a note to let you know that I am still working on the exam answers as you have not hearing from me for a while. When I have done with it, I will ping you. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: Hi, I have finished answering the exam questions. Kindly review and thank you. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, CASSIOPEIA. I'll take a look at them as soon as I can. Mz7 (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A big thank you

@Mz7: Thank you for talking your time and put so much effort for the last 2 months coaching and guiding me on this program. You have taught me so much and I have gained a lot of knowledge during my journey as a counter vandalism student which I am pretty such I you will hear from me in the future when I need advice in this department. Appreciate it and A BIG THANK YOU Mz7!. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Inter-wiki COI inter template

Moved to User talk:Mz7 § Inter-wiki COI inter template

 – Hope you don't mind, but I've moved the discussion to my main talk page so that I can more easily navigate to it and you don't have to ping me every time. Mz7 (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)