User:Ahmetlii/CVUA
Comment: Cut-and-paste copied from User talk:Pahunkat/CVUA/Ahmetlii after graduation
Hello Ahmetlii, and 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 my talk page.
Make sure you read through Wikipedia:Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.
- How to use this page
This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.
- Once you graduate, I will copy this page into your userspace so you have a record of your training and a reference for the future.
- Curriculum
There are several sections of the training course. In some of them, will be asking you to do perform practical exercises (for example, patrolling recent changes or the abuse log in order to find problematic edits); in others, I will ask you to read certain policies and guidelines, and then ask you some questions about their content. It is not a problem if you give the wrong answer to any of the questions - making mistakes and discussing them is a crucial part of the learning process. For that reason, it is important that you do not attempt to find previous users' training pages in order to identify the 'right' answers to give: all your answers should be your own, so that we can identify and address any misconceptions that you might have. There is no time pressure to complete the course: we will go at whatever pace works for you, and you can take a pause or ask questions at any point along the way.
- Communication
Counter-vandalism work can result in very large watchlists, which can make it more difficult to monitor pages using that alone. For this reason, I will ping you whenever I update this page with some feedback or a new task; I would also ask you to ping me when you have completed a task, so that I get a notification telling me that it's ready for review. See WP:PING for details on how to do this if you aren't sure. Pahunkat (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The start[edit]
Gadgets[edit]
Twinkle[edit]
Twinkle is a highly useful gadget that can be enabled by any autoconfirmed user. It is used to automate a variety of maintenance tasks, including reverting vandalism, tagging pages for deletion and requesting page protection (you'll learn about these later in the course). See Wikipedia:Twinkle for more information about this tool.
Redwarn[edit]
Redwarn is a tool specifically designed for reverting vandalism and warning users. You can read its documentation, including how to install the tool, at Wikipedia:RedWarn.
Huggle[edit]
Huggle is another anti-vandalism tool which comes in the form of a desktop application. To use Huggle you must have rollback permissions, so we won't be covering Huggle during this course - though feel free to ask me about it upon completion. You can read up about it at Wikipedia:Huggle.
Enable Twinkle and RedWarn (if you haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled them. Already enabled.
Good faith and vandalism[edit]
When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful to an article, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. While it is often necessary to revert such edits, we treat them differently from vandalism, so it is important to recognize the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the tasks in this section.
- Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.
- Good faith edit is generally trying to improve the page (and they generally believe it's the true information and it should be put), when a vandalism edit is generally trying to intentionally change the informations with wrong one with bad faith. (like changing dates to a wrong one although it's apparently wrong, or blanking the page and spamming letters, words, etc.) About telling them apart, we can look to a few signs
1 - Is it with likely good intentions even though it contradicts with guidelines? - If no, look to the second question. If yes, it's likely good faith editing 2 - Is it obvious disrupting edits or spamming? - If yes, then it's vandalism. If no, then repeat the steps again.
- I like the bit about good faith edits trying to improve articles, though it's worth noting that not all good faith edits are related to the changing of information (for example, they may edit the page to "make it look nicer", but such edits may contradict guidelines on WP:MOS). I would say that good faith edits are ones which are unconstructive but not malicious, where the editor is trying to help improve the encyclopedia, wheras vandalism is editing which deliberately attempts to disrupt wikipedia. You haven't answered the second part of the question though - how would you tell vandalism and good faith apart?
Part 2 - , the key thing here is if you're in doubt, assume good faith. Faith can be hard to gauge, things to consider are previous warnings/edits of the user, filter log, etc...
- Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. These can be from your editing history or from your next recent changes/abuselog patrol.
- Good faith but unhelpful edits
special:diff/999755538 - We were generally looking for edits which were unhelpful (and needed to be reverted) but with good intentions. However, this is a completely constructive edit
special:diff/999705859
- the user was trying to make things clearer but the edit, but this falls short of WP:NPOV. Nothing to suggest bad intentions here
special:diff/999146221 - Completely good edit, but per comment on first diff we were really looking for ones which are unhelpful but with good intentions
- Vandalism
special:diff/999735732 - classic example of vandalism
Special:diff/999650833 , though in some cases unexplained removal of content could be considered good faith (but blanking out entire sections is unlikely to be good faith)
A note about Redwarn and Twinkle[edit]
Hopefully you'll have noticed that RedWarn allows you three primary options for performing a rollback - green, blue, and red links (see the screenshot). All three will revert all of the most recent consecutive edits made by a single user to a page. The orange button should only be used when a user blanks a large portion of the page without an edit summary that explains why - this is called unexplained removal of content.
Try to use these buttons where possible. The green and the blue ones allow you to add an edit summary - it's described as 'optional', but you should not treat it as such - always leave a brief edit summary, even if it's just 'Rv test edit', or 'Rv unexplained removal of content', or whatever. Use the green one when you think it's a good faith mistake, and the blue one when you're not sure. Only use the red one when you are certain that it is unambiguous vandalism - it saves time, because it leaves a generic edit summary, and all of them will take you directly to the talk page of the person you have reverted, to allow you to use the 'Warn' option to give them a warning. (Also note that you can use the purple "restore this version" button when you need to revert edits by multiple users.) There are more options for 'rollback' buttons if you click the three dots at the very end of the menu, for edits that require reverting because they violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines (for example edits uncompliant with the manual of style and undisclosed paid editing).
Likewise, with Twinkle there are three 'rollback' links - once again they are red, blue and green. You should apply the same principles of judgement as for the buttons in RedWarn when deciding which link to use.
Note that, per WP:3RR, An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. However, exceptions apply (see the 3RR page) - including reverting blatant and obvious vandalism. If you're not sure, it's best not to go past three reverts and attempt to engage the editor in discussion.
Hello Ahmetlii, the tasks on this part shouldn't take to long. You seem to have found your way round Wikipedia very well, and I can see you've already got redwarn enabled. Ping me below once this section's complete, so I can take a look and release the next section Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pahunkat: Done.Ahmetlii (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ahmetlii - you just need to answer the second bit on the first question, and I think we'll be alright to release the next part. Note that when we refer to good faith editing, we refer to edits which are unconstructive (and require reverting) but were not made with malicious intentions as opposed to completely good edits which are fine staying as they are. Pahunkat (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Warning and reporting[edit]
When you use RedWarn or 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 note that most of this is automated on RedWarn; you'll need to pick this only if you pick the blue button.
- Please answer the following questions
- Why do we warn users?
We warn users to inform them. Yes, we inform them of our relevant policies and guidelines and ask them to stop.
- When would a 4im (only) warning be appropriate?
When there's an excessive and constant disruption.
- Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it? (Hint - read the link before answering!)
Yes, I should substitute and I do it with "subst:(template name)".
- What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalizes again?
Directly report to WP:AIV.
- Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. For each revert/warning please fill in a line on the table below. If you have trouble with the wiki markup, tell me and we'll get it sorted out.
| # | Diff of your revert | Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff | Trainer's Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1000239379 | Blanking, addition of insulting words |
|
| 2 | 1000240271 | Addition of words for insulting |
|
| 3 | 1000240427 | Blanking, addition of words for insulting |
|
| 4 | 1000241356 | addition of nonsense words and spaces | Seems to be an insult directed against France rather than nonsense words
|
| 5 | 1000243212 | addition of nonsense words, name changing | An insult to the person once you've translated it from italian
|
| 6 | 1000243297 | deliberately addition of wrong information | - This could be considered a test edit, but looking at the other entries that the IP made I think they show otherwise
|
| 7 | 1000273931 | addition of content for insult and misinterpretation |  - Whilst this edit definitely has issues with WP:NPOV, I'd say that applying WP:AGF is in order
|
| 8 | 1000274248 | deliberate misinterpretation | - Content dispute, not vandalism. Ask the editor to take it to the talk page
|
| 9 | 1000275821 | number vandalism, deliberate removal of content |
|
| 10 | 1000274673 | disinformation | - Borderline case, but in the end I'd apply WP:AGF here.
|
Ahmetlii, here's the second section, now we're looking at warning and reporting. Once again, ping me when you're finished. If you have any questions relating to the last section (especially in relation to good faith edits), do ask me here. Remember to keep seeing if you can identify good faith edits vs vandalism when you're patrolling recent changes. Pahunkat (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Protection and speedy deletion[edit]
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. You can use the RedWarn menu (on the right-hand side, the RPP option) to request page protection. Twinkle can be used to request speedy deletion (the TW menu next to the search bar on top, the CSD option) and also request page protection (the RPP option on the menu).
Protection[edit]
Please read the protection policy.
- In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
It should be semi-protected when there's an excessive and steady IP/newcomer vandalism or content dispute. For content dispute, this will be an edit war between non-autoconfirmed users. Sockpuppetry is another valid reason.
- In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?
It should be pending protected when it got enough IP vandalism/content dispute (but not steady), and it's about a controversial/recent issue or a BLP.
- In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
It should be fully protected when there's a high-traffic template, or a page that gets vandalism even though it's extended confirmed protected. We try not fully protect pages due to vandalism, but it does happen occasionally for short periods of time. This is mainly used in the case of WP:EDIT WAR between extended-confirmed users, however there are a few other circumstances that you won't need to know about when doing counter-vandalism work.
- In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
When it's deleted more than one time and it's created repeatedly although it doesn't meet creation standards.
- In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
It should be semi-protected when it gets a lot vandalism, like a page that gets so many vandals due to its situation. (like controversial topic, BLP, recent topic, etc.) Only in the cases of persistent disruption. Talk page protection is rare and I've only come across examples twice before.
- Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request at WP:RPP below. (Note - it might take you a while to come across a circumstance where this is required - we can continue with the next section of the course before you do this, but when the need arises please post here and ping me).
I've recently did in here
Speedy deletion[edit]
Please read WP:CSD.
- In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?
If it is recently created (except obvious cases), hasn't survived from a deletion discussion, and qualifies a criteria stated in WP:CSD in appropiate sections and namespaces, it should be speedy deleted.
Speedy deletion examples[edit]
In past iterations of this course, students have been asked to go out and actually tag pages for deletion, but with the introduction of WP:ACPERM, the amount of straight vandalism that gets created directly in mainspace has reduced dramatically. As such, I'm going to ask you to say how you would act in a set of hypothetical scenarios. What would you do if you saw the page listed in each scenario? Note that not all scenarios may warrant speedy deletion.
- Scenario 1
A user with the username "BobSucks" creates an article called "John Smith" that contains solely the following text:
John Smith is the worst elementary school teacher on the planet.
Falls per WP:G10, and directly tagged with deletion. (of course with the notice like I automatically did in every SD)
- Scenario 2
A user with the username "GoodTimesLLC" creates a user page with the following text:
'''Good Times LLC''' is an organization dedicated to helping your children get the highest quality education at an affordable price. Visit our website at goodtimes.info and contact us at 123-456-7890.
That's directly falls under WP:G11. and a UAA report may be warranted since this is a company name
- Scenario 3
A user creates an article titled "Edward Gordon" with the following text:
'''Edward Gordon''' (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 5,250 subscribers on YouTube.
It would be deleted per WP:A7 and WP:G10 on article namespace. A7 yes, G10 no since G10 is only for attack pages or negative and unsourced BLPs.
- Scenario 4
A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content:
Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz.
(Attribution: Ritchie333 came up with this scenario as a question to an old RfA candidate. I've borrowed his example here. Hint: Try Google searching a few key terms from this short article.)
It would be deleted per WP:A1 and WP:G10 on article namespace.
This one's tricky. Definitely not a G10 since that's for attack pages/ wholly negative and unsourced BLPs. Try searching a few terms up from the article - could you make it into a redirect?
Redirect to The Nice.
- Scenario 5
A user creates an article that was clearly copied and pasted directly from another website, which states "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom of it. Would your answer be the same if it didn't state "All Rights Reserved" at the bottom?
I would probably look for whether it has references or not, it complies with article creation criterias, and then check the information with Earwig's Copyvios. Then, I would probably nominate for deletion per WP:G12 or not.
Question: - would it matter if the words "all rights reserved" were at the bottom of the page or not?
No, it would not.
- Scenario 6
A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.
Deletion per WP:G1, then welcome the user with one of the "foreign language welcome" templates. The user may also refund the page via WP:REFUND.
- If the subject has an article with essentially the same content which exists on another wiki, tag it under WP:CSD#A2. Else, if the article is not the same as an article on another project then use the template {{Not English}}, and list the page at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for review and possible translation.
- Scenario 7
A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
Deletion per WP:G7.
- Scenario 8
A new user creates a user page with nothing but the following content:
Jlakjrelekajroi3j192809jowejfldjoifu328ur3pieisgreat
How would this scenario be different if the page was created in draftspace or in a user sandbox?
If it's a sandbox, it won't be a candidate for deletion, but it's in the draftspace or article space, it will be deleted per WP:G1. - and on a userpage?
Yes, it can't be a candidate for deletion on userpage.
Ahmetlii, please see my comments above on the last section. Here's the new section, this time on page protection. Pahunkat (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Pahunkat,
Done Ahmetlii (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Revision Deletion and Oversight[edit]
Please read WP:REVDEL and WP:OVERSIGHT.
Occasionally, vandalism will be so extreme that it needs to be removed from publicly accessible revision histories - the criteria for these are described in the articles above. Revision deletion hides the edit from anyone except admins; oversight provides an even greater level of restriction, with only oversighters able to see the comments. The threshold between the two is quite fine - I've been on the wrong side of it a few times. If you are in doubt as to whether revdel or oversight is required, the best bet is to forward it to the oversight team - whoever reviews it will be able to make the decision and act on it.
- If you believe an edit needs to be revision deleted, how would you request that?
Contacting with an administrator via talk page if it's not serious. (like a copyright violation)
- And if it's serious? Which template would you use for a copyvio revdel?
{{Copyvio-revdel}} for copyright. If it's serious, I replied on the second answer. Right for copyvio revdel, but everything else apart from copyvios, RD4 or AC must be sent by email to an administrator through Special:emailuser.
- If you believe that it's so serious it needs oversight, how would you request that?
Using private channels e.g. email, IRC (via #wikipedia-en-revdel), or Discord.
- Which email?
oversight-en-wp
wikipedia.org or Special:EmailUser/Oversight.
Ahmetlii, I've left feedback on the previous section. Please see the new section above. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Usernames[edit]
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 (note that you can set this to view 500 users rather than the default 50 - I find that easier to scroll through quickly, and the link on my userpage takes you there directly). 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 (words like admin, sysop, Wikimedia Foundation, etc), usernames that impersonate other people (either famous people, or other Wikipedians' usernames), 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 particular 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). If you need more information before deciding what to do, explain what more you need.
- BGates
Possible misleading username with Bill Gates. Might be an impersonation, but I should look to contribs to confirm it's an impersonation and report. Remember to confirm impersonation - this could stand for something else, for example Brendan Gates
- LMedicalCentre
Promotional username, direct report
- J0E B1DEN
Misleading username with Joe Biden, direct report.
- JoeAtBurgerKing
Possible disruptive username or (to an extent) promotional username. Should be warned and needs to check contributions for reporting. This form of username is encouraged
- JoeTheSysop
Misleading username, and therefore warned at first, and simultaneously report for block. Do one or the other, do not simultaneously report to UAA and warn. In this case, I'd report to UAA.
- Ahmétlii
Misleading username (impersonation), and therefore reported for block.
- Yallaredumb
Offensive username, direct report and block.
- Oshwaah
Misleading username (impersonation), and therefore reported for block.
- 😜
Possible misleading username, warned but not reported directly.
- 1kdimfi3jgoerto4u5urt9u3u93dhoweeherwrwehehehe
Misleading username, warned but not reported directly. Admins tend to block these as they are examples of disruptive usernames.
- G1rth Summ1t
Misleading username (impersonation), and therefore reported for block.
Ahmetlii, here's the next section! As always, ping me when finished and ask any questions you have below. Pahunkat (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Emergencies[edit]
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?
Email to emergencywikimedia.org (Special:EmailUser/Emergency is also going to same email), and then, contact with a suppressor privately (via email, IRC - #wikipedia-en-revdel - channel, or Discord) If it's against to me, and not an empty threat, and an immediate danger (I wish it will not ever happen); I will also contact with local authorities if possible. I should include diffs about the threat when reporting. , though you should leave it to the people at emergency to determine the severity of the threat.
- 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)?
Even though it might be just a joke, I should handle iit, and reporting to admins via private channels. Perfect. Whilst most threats (some which have been directed against me) are empty, still report to emergency.
Ahmetlii, see above for the next section. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Dealing with difficult users[edit]
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 vandalize 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?
- Because that is exactly they want to, they want "recognition", and therefore when they get recognition and contact, they will continue their behaouvior. For not continuing their behaouvior, do not encourage them. But also, this will not mean that you shouldn't do procedural works, like reporting, put some vandals to LTA to document, put sockpuupet templates to the puppets; since they will not give recognition. (and I have vandal/s, which target/s me every month; however, cannot get recognition)
Ahmetlii, great work on the last section. This one's a short section, but a key principle when dealing with vandals and trolls. Once again, ping me once you've finished. Pahunkat (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Rollback[edit]
In light of your recent contributions, I expect that if you apply for the rollback permission at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, an administrator would be happy to enable it on your account, but first we should demonstrate that you understand what the tool is, and the responsibilities that go along with it.
The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced counter vandalism operatives to revert vandalism with the click of one button, not unlike the "rollback" button that you've already been using in Twinkle. This would give you a new rollback button in addition to the three you've been seeing in Twinkle. The new rollback button is slightly faster than the Twinkle rollback button, but more importantly, having the rollback right gives you access to downloadable counter-vandalism software like Huggle and Stiki.
If you're interested, take a look at our rollback guideline at WP:Rollback and feel free to answer the questions below. The rollback right is not an essential part of this course, so if you're not interested, feel free to say so and we'll skip this section.
- Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.
- It should be used when there's so many problematic edits that made by same editor in cases of vandalism etc.
Question: When should it not be used? Can rollback be used in content disputes?
- Rollbacks cannot be used in content disputes, edit warring, and good-faith edits. Five criteria are specified: Reverting obvious vandalism, edits in your userspace, edits that you've made, edits that were made by banned/blocked users in violation of their block/ban and widespread, unhelpful edits providing there's been an explanation for the reversions in an appropriate location.
- Hopefully this will never happen, but it does occasionally. If you accidentally use rollback, what should you do?
Undo the rollbacking with undo or rollback again, and leave an edit summary (and I did this type of mistake a lot on trwiki) Revert with Twinkle or RedWarn - do not use rollback again.
- Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?
No in default, although there's some tools to leave an edit summary when rollbacking. Use twinkle or RedWarn in this case
Hello Ahmetlii, see the new section above. Answer the questions first to demonstrate you understand when to use rollback before applying for the permission. Note it's perfectly fine to not want rollback, since Twinkle and RedWarn can carry out the fame functions. Pahunkat (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also, just to let you know that this was a clear-cut BLP violation as opposed to original research. Pahunkat (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Pahunkat, yes, probably I missed that. Ahmetlii (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Pahunkat, done. (and however, I requested that right within 90 days, and I actually think about requesting a month later.Ahmetlii (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ahmetlii, follow-up question above - I didn't realise you were an editor on tr wiki! Pahunkat (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Pahunkat, done. (and however, I requested that right within 90 days, and I actually think about requesting a month later.Ahmetlii (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Pahunkat, yes, probably I missed that. Ahmetlii (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Final Exam[edit]
Please read each of the following questions carefully, and ensure that you have responded fully - some of them ask you to expand on what you would do in different situations. When responding to numbered questions please start your response with "#:" (except where shown otherwise - with **). You don't need to worry about signing your answers.
Part 1[edit]
- 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).
- A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article, having never edited before. Would you treat it differently if they had done the same thing once before?
Yes, I would treat it differently if they did that multiple times and get warning(s). In that situation (never edited user), I would undo with assuming good faith. However, if they did that multiple times and got warnings, I would undo with treating as vandalism, and even reporting to AIV.
- A user adds their signature to an article after once being given a {{Uw-articlesig}} warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?
Since they got a first warning, I can give a last warning for disruptive editing. If they keep doing after that, I would report to AIV. be careful not to WP:BITE the newcomers. Maybe a disruptive2 or similar is warranted rather than a 4im. If they keep adding their signature to the article after multiple warnings, report to WP:AIV.
- 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?
In first time, I would assume AGF and give an original research warning. If they keep doing after that and get the last warning, I would treat to it as disruptive editing/vandalism, and go to AIV. A npov warning would be better, but you've got the bit about escalating warnings.
- A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
In first time, I would treat it as "test edit", and give a notice about this. However, if they are still doing it after warnings, I would treat as vandalism and report to AIV.
- 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?
If this is the first time, I would give a simple NPOV warning. If the user has positive contributions, I would assume AGF and act softer. If the user has disruptive contributions, I would give a last warning about disruptive contributions, act harsher, and then if they are still maintaining their disruptive behaouviors after reverts and discussions, I would report to AN3.
Question: Please clarify what you mean by you would give a "last warning" - do you mean escalate until a level 4 and then report to AIV or to just give a 4im?
- Give a 4im, and if still continue, then AIV.
You've got pretty much everything correct here, but try to limit use of 4im warnings to excessive disruptions. If they have disruptive contribs, I'd follow on from their last level warning, but this is just my opinion so no marks deducted.
[[#ref_{{{1}}}|^]] I've deducted a half mark for the yellow ticks combined
Part 2[edit]
- 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.
- A user blanks Cheesecake.
I would give {{Uw-blank1}}.
- A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
I would give {{Uw-attempt1}}
- A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
I would give {{Uw-bes1}}
- A user puts "CHRIS IS WEIRD!" on Atlanta Airport.
I would give {{uw-vandalism1}}. If it's directed towards an editor, I would give {{uw-npa1}}.
- A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
I would give {{uw-delete1}}
- A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
I would give {{uw-vandalism1}} Though be sure this isn't a test edit
- A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
I would give {{Uw-disruptive1}}
- A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
I would give {{uw-biog1}}
- A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
I would give {{Uw-vandalism4im}}
- A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
I would report to AIV
- 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).
I would open a case on ANI
- A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
I would give {{Uw-image1}} {{uw-test1}} is probably more relevant here, but this kind of works
Part 3[edit]
- What CSD tag you would put on the following articles? (The content below represents the entire content of the article).
- Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
Deletion per G11 ({{db-spam}}).
- Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
Deletion per A1 and A7 ({{Db-a1}} and {{Db-person}}
- Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
Deletion per A1 {{Db-a1}}
- A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
Deletion per G3 ({{Db-hoax}})
- wiki is annoying and useless even I can edit it so dont use it
Deletion per A10, because it's about Criticism of Wikipedia ({{Db-a10}}) Interesting argument for deletion. It's sort of valid, I guess, but most people would tag it under something like G3 (vandalism) or G10 (attack page). I'll give you the point though. Pahunkat (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Part 4[edit]
Comment: Based on answers to part 5 I can tell you mean reporting to UAA.
- Are the following new (logged in) usernames violations of the username policy? Describe why or why not and what you would do about it (if they are a breach).
- TheMainStreetBand
Not a violation, because not a direct promotional username. However; if it's a promotional username according to contributions; then should be reported. Username implies shared use (main thing), but if they've edited constructively maybe leave a TP message rather than report (though in this case they'd be soft blocked instead of hard blocked).
- SUBSCRIBETOKURZGESAGT
Blatant violation of username policy as promotional username, because it falsely implies it belongs to a YouTube channel and trying to advertise. Reported.
- Brian's Bot
Blatant violation of username policy as misleading username, because it falsely implies that it's a bot. Reported.
- sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
Confusing username due to it is so long, however, don't need to direct report per WP:UNCONF if the user didn't do vandalism or disruptive editing (if they do, then should be reported as disruptive username without warning). But also I would give a warning.
- WikiAdmin
Blatant violation of username policy as misleading username, because it falsely implies it's an admin and Wiki. Reported.
- 12:12, 23 June 2012
Confusing username due to it implies timestamp, however, don't need to direct report per WP:UNCONF if the user didn't do vandalism or disruptive editing (if they do, then should be reported as disruptive username without warning). But also I would give a warning. Leave a TP message if they've been constructive
- PMiller
Not a violation, because of not violated username policy. However; if it's an impersonation, and I understand it from contributions; then should be reported.
- RealDonaldTrump
Blatant violation of username policy as misleading username, because it falsely implies the user is Donald Trump. Reported.
Part 5[edit]
- Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.
- Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
No, I cannot. It doesn't count if I reverted vandalism. However, I should ensure it's a pure vandalism and not an attempt with good faith. You cannot get into an edit war reverting blatant vandalism. If it's not blatant, try to communicate with the editor in question.
- Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
They should be reported to AIV
- Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
It should be reported to WMF via emergencywikimedia.org or Special:EmailUser/Emergency, and then contact with an admin via looking to #wikipedia-en-revdel channel in IRC, using EmailUser for contecting via email, and Discord (or another private messaging system if there's other private messaging systems); if it includes physical harm. Otherwise, it should be reported to Arbitration Committee via arbcom-enwikimedia.org or Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee. If it includes sensitive personal informations on edits, contact to oversighters via oversight-en-wp{{@]]wikipedia.org , Special:EmailUser/Oversight, or another private channel that you can contact with an Oversight user.
I'm not going to penalize you on this, on review it looks like this question should be more clearly worded and you've made valid points in your answer. Note that instead of arbcom this should go to ANI.
- Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
They should be reported to UAA
- Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
They should be reported to ANI
- Where and how should an edit war be reported?
It should be reported to AN/3
- Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
They should be reported to WP:BLP/N
Ahmetlii - see above and good luck! Take your time, and remember to refer back to the policies you've learnt. It would also be beneficial to cite which policies you use to make your decisions. Pahunkat (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
BTW don't worry about that user - they're an LTA :-) Pahunkat (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Pahunkat, no problem, they're stalking me since months anyway. I was also going to open a LTA case but then realized that they're also a sockpuppet of another LTA. Thanks for pinging. :) Ahmetlii (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Completion[edit]
Ahmetlii, Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy, on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction and graduation from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with a score of 96%. Well done! Pahunkat (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
As a graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox (make sure you replace your enrollee userbox) as well as the graduation message posted on your talk page (this can be treated the same as a barnstar).
{{User CVUA|graduate}}:
 | This user is a Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy graduate. |