User:Pahunkat/CVUA/ChromiumOverload

Hello ChromiumOverload, 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) 21:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The start

Gadgets

Twinkle

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

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

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.
Not needed as already enabled. Pahunkat (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Finding the vandals

There are two main ways to find edits to check for vandalism. The first is through the recent changes log - this can be accessed by clicking the 'Recent changes' link in the 'contribute' section at the left navigation bar, or navigating to Special:Recentchanges. The second way if through monitoring the abuse log, which lists edits which have tripped edit filters - these edits may still go through or may be disallowed depending on the filter. This can be accessed at Special:Abuselog.

Since you've already installed RedWarn and Twinkle, you don't need to take any action with regards to the above - just have a read :-) Pahunkat (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism

When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful to an article, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. Note that good faith edits are different to completely good edits. While it is necessary to revert good-faith 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, WP:BITE and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the tasks in this section.

AGF is one of the most important policies to bear in mind when patrolling for vandalism - it's important that you get this right, so please take time to read the above policies carefully - if you have any confusion at all please raise it with me below. We'll stay on this section for as long as necessary, there's no limit on the time it takes to complete this section.

A new user makes an edit that needs to be reverted. On which circumstances would you AGF: Edits contrary to the manual of style, replacing the name of a BLP with "Wikipedia is stupid", edits that don't adhere to a neutral point of view, addition of unsourced (not defamatory) content, adding swear words to the text of an article. Include reasons

AGF: Edits contrary to the manual of style, would be messed up wikitext or changing formats so it does not match. replacing the name of a BLP with "Wikipedia is stupid", edits that don't adhere to a neutral point of view, content, adding swear words to the text of an article I would consider vandalism and addition of unsourced (not defamatory) I would consider good faith.

Can depend for NPOV - sometimes new users are trying to improve the encyclopedia, other times they are here to push their point of view.

Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.

Good faith are edits that may not help like if it is formatted incorrectly or if it is a first time. Vandalism is like weighting sexy or bad words of purposely changing it to a bad state or repetitively changing it to a bad state.

It's all about the editor's intentions - vandalism is editing to disrupt the encyclopedia, whereas good faith editors seek to improve the encyclopedia but may make minor mistakes along the way

Please explain why it is important to not to WP:BITE newcomers whose edits may have been made in good faith

Then they might feel unwelcome and not want to stay.

You come across an edit, and you find yourself unsure as to whether it was made in good or bad faith. In cases like these do you treat the edit as made in good faith or bad faith, and why?

If I am unsure I always assume good faith. Because it is better to assume good faith and the person if not a vandal feels better then if I warn as vandalism.

Assume good faith

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/Abuse log patrol.

Type	Diff	Trainer's comment
Good-faith edit	Muhammad bin Tughluq: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia	Probably a test edit, not sure if this is slang in another language
Good-faith edit	Sher Singh Rana: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia	Likely a test edit, warn as such
Good-faith edit	Tashard Choice: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia	I would say this is likely deliberate disruption given that they've repeated it, and treat it as such
Good-faith edit	Farmington, Missouri: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia	Likely a test edit, warn as such
Vandalism	Angry Birds Stella (TV series): Difference between revisions - Wikipedia	Y Obvious
Vandalism	Tim Walz: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia	Y
Vandalism	Iggy Azalea: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia (Removed from public archive)	Y Revdel'd under RD2 is never a good sign
Vandalism	Clint Conatser: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia	IP has a history of vandalism, you can see on their talk page that this is a school
Vandalism	Lenín Moreno: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia	Y not for improving the encyclopedia, at best pushing their point of view
Vandalism	Cemetery: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia	Y

A note about Redwarn and Twinkle

Use either the green, blue, or red "rollback" links, since they save a more relevant edit summary

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, undisclosed paid editing and enforcing violations of WP:3RR).

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 ChromiumOverload, this section on distinguishing between vandalism and good-faith edits will be your first task. Let me know if you have any questions along the way and ping me when you've completed it. Pahunkat (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Hello! I finished! ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 21:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello ChromiumOverload, I just marked the diffs. Everything's mostly fine, FYI RedWarn gives more options for the edit summary provided when you revert if you click the menu option. There are a few questions above the table (it's hard to see them), could you complete them please? Pahunkat (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I don't see it. Could you do a screenshot? ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 16:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind I found them! ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 16:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: I changed it how does this look? ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 16:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I marked the questions, those were also good. Onto the next section, ChromiumOverload, on warning + reporting, see below. Pahunkat (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

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 and 4im, 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

We warn users because it gives the users chances. For example if I make a disruptive edit with the intent of helping the warn would let me know that I made a mistake. But if I just got banned without being given a chance to change I would be angry. Warnings are a way that we show the chance for people to learn from their actions and change. Y FYI a block is different to a ban, but you get the gist.

When. you come across repeated blatant vandalism from a user or ip that is continuing but hasn't been warned yet. Y or particularly egregious cases

Yes. All warning and welcome templated must be substituted before being posted. You do this by doing {{subst:page name}}. Y

You should report them to AIV. Y

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. Note that you must be the user that reverts the vandalism and warns the user. If you have trouble with the wiki markup, tell me and we'll get it sorted out.

#	Diff of your revert, and warning if applicable.	Your comment. If you report to AIV please include the diff	Trainer's Comment
1	~~Anbe Vaa (2020 TV series): Difference between revisions - Wikipedia User talk:76.67.64.75 - Wikipedia~~	After Noticing they had made multiple vandalism changes and not been warned and they were continuing I gave them a 4im warning.	Question: Can you explain why you think this edit is vandalism? This was a misclick on the user and warn I deleted the warn and appologised.
2	Talk:Antarctica: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia User talk:Nine+ten=twentyone - Wikipedia	This was their first one so I did good faith vandalism.	Y Trolling, good level 1 warning
3	Walking: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia User talk:174.76.113.91 - Wikipedia	Already had a LV1 Warning so I did a LV2	Y As a side note, when you're warning with RW just include the page title (not the URL)
4	Rabbi Akiva: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia User talk:2600:1001:B124:B8D0:B061:5745:69E:9B3B - Wikipedia	I think vandalism instead of test edit because they lied on the edit summary.	Y
5	Raleigh Christian Academy: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia User talk:24.199.152.202 - Wikipedia	LV1 because of first offence this month. Also marked as shared ip.	Y
6	We Bare Bears: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia User talk:12.233.172.218 - Wikipedia	First offence LV1	Y
7	Brick (film) - Wikipedia] User contributions for 212.118.8.226 - Wikipedia	2nd Offence obvious bad faith LV3	Y
8	Corruption in Bangladesh: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia User talk:2A02:C7F:AE4C:1700:40A7:A729:788D:11E3 - Wikipedia	Assuming good faith but still Vandalism	Question: So is this good faith or vandalism? It was LV1 vandalism whitch is assuming good faith
9	Jason Garrett: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia User talk:160.72.80.178 - Wikipedia	LV3 because it was not first offence.	Y
10	Amazon river dolphin: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia User talk:70.168.228.60 - Wikipedia	LV1	Y

Ping me if you have any questions on this Pahunkat (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: I am having trouble understanding the difference between disruptive editing and vandalism. Could you explain? ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 16:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

ChromiumOverload, disruptive editing is explained well on this guideline - does this help? Pahunkat (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Yes! Thanks one thing... Would somebody editing an article to make defamatory statements be vandalism? Right? ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 17:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

ChromiumOverload, I would treat it as such. Pahunkat (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: I finished! ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 20:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: I cant find the next thing? ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 17:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello ChromiumOverload, I marked the questions but haven't got round to the diffs yet - busy day for me. I'll finish marking by the end of the day (from the UK). Pahunkat (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Oh! Ok! Thanks!ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 17:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: OMG I feel soo bad I clicked the wrong person there and then gave them a level 4 warning to the wrong person what do i do? For number 1!!ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 18:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: I sent an appology and deleted the warn. ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 18:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - we all make mistakes, don't worry about it :-) Pahunkat (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

ChromiumOverload, I had a look at the rest of the diffs - I have a question about number 8, could you answer that please? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: LV1 Vandalism whitch says good faith vandal warn. also i cant see the response for 10.ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 19:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to tick 10 - that was fine. Be careful not to confuse the concepts of good faith and vandalism, I would dispute RW's terminology of uw-vandal1 as a "good faith vandal" warning, it's just softer wording for vandals (as a result I tend to start on level 2 for clear bad-faith vandals, but this is just a matter of personal preference). Anyway, thanks for clarifying - onto the next section ChromiumOverload. Pahunkat (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Page protection

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).

Please read the protection policy.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?

When continuously vandalized by IP users and not alot of the IP users edits are useful. Or to stop edit wars between IP users.

Question: Just IPs? How about other user levels, and are there any other circumstances where we might need to protect a page from these users?

Sorry! Ip users and new users(Non Autoconfirmed). Anything higher can edit the page still and therefor this protection is not effective for users That are Autoconfirmed.

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

When a page is being consistently vandalized by new users and IP users.

Question: Define what you mean by "new users"

Sorry for not being clear. New Users as in Non Autoconfirmed.

Question: In what circumstances would we use pending changes as opposed to semi protection?

When There is still alot of good contributions being made by IP users so you dont want to fully block them from editing.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

To stop edit wars between users that cant be stopped using other blocks.

Question: What user access levels (for the editors edit warring) would require an article to be fully protected?

Sorry! Any user that is extended confirmed or higher.

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

When a page is Repetitively created after continuously being deleted.

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

If it is under attack from severe vandalism or abuse.

Question: For how long would we protect a talk page?

Temporarily but it does not say how long?

Article talk pages are only protected for very brief periods of time, see WP:ATPROT

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).

See above - ping me when completed. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: I am done lets continue and I will keep on the lookout for pages to request protection on. ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 05:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello ChromiumOverload, lots of questions to follow up above, perhaps it would be best to answer directly underneath the questions. Pahunkat (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Sorry I did this right before my final so I was kinda rushed. I fixed it. ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 16:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey ChromiumOverload, please don't prioritize this over exams - there's no deadlines here, real life should come first. Pahunkat (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok! That was my last one! ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 17:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hope they went well! I still have some to do next week. Anyway, I've got one more question ChromiumOverload - see above. Pahunkat (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok! Is that good?ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 20:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep, that's great! Pahunkat (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted?

What do the letter prefixed to each criteria mean? In previous iterations I've mostly skipped this question, but we're not going to do much tagging so explaining the prefixes and all of the G-criteria will do

G is for General
R is for ~~(Rex is Very Confused)~~Ahem... Redirects
A is for Articles
F is for Files
C is for Categories
U is for User Pages
P is for Portals

Y

Tag two pages in any namespace for speedy deletion. It may take a while to find one, so I'd be willing to move on if you can't find any to tag. Post the page name below.

Speedy deletion examples

In past iterations of this course, students have been asked to go out and tag multiple mainspace 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.

Yes under G10.

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.

Yes under G11.

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.

Yes under A7.

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.)

Yes under G1.

G1 doesn't apply here since the sentence makes sense. G1 only applies when the page is completely incomprehensible. Perhaps a redirect?

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?

Yes under G12. Also Still Yes and still under G12 because it is still plagiarism.

Scenario 6

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.

If it is already on the wiki of that language then yes under A2. If not then Start a discussion.

Question: Could you clarify what you mean by "start a discussion"?

I would start a discussion on the normal deletion request.

Scenario 7

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.

No I would just revert it back to the version that is not blanked.

This falls under one of the speedy deletion criteria...

Ok! It would be 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? How about in article space, or in a user sandbox?

I Dont know if you saw this but if you separate it up it says "~~Jlakjrelekajroi3j192809jowe~~ jf ~~ldjo~~ i fu ~~328~~ ur 3 pie is great" so I would do it under G1 if it was a article and ask for a opinion if it was somwthing else like a talk page.

This is a G1 in spaces where G1 is applicable - mainspace (article space) and draftspace. However, G1 should not be used in the user sandbox or userpage.

Ok! Got It!

Hello ChromiumOverload, please see above for the next section. It's on speedy deletion. You can request speedy deletion of a page using the twinkle sidebar and selecting the CSD option, IMO the best way to find pages you can tag for speedy deletion is through the edit filter log. Ping me if you have any questions and when you've completed this section. Pahunkat (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Ok! What do you mean we are not gonna be doing much tagging? ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 20:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

When this course format was first created, there was a lot of speedy deletable material being created in mainspace. With the introduction of WP:ACPERM limiting mainspace page creation to autoconfirmed users, the number has dropped. As a result it isn't as easy to find pages to speedy delete in mainspace. However, don't take it as "don't tag anything", that isn't the impression I wanted to give. Pahunkat (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Ok! So I am done but dont have a speedy delete article so can we continue and if I find one Ill let you know? ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 21:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Would that be ok?ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 21:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Also for the person I reported to AIV is it ok if it was before I started being trained?ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 21:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

ChromiumOverload, could you clarify which user you're referring to? Pahunkat (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: This Person. User talk:Wyomingian - Wikipedia ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 17:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: Also I finished with all the changes. ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 17:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)#

Hello ChromiumOverload, it's fine if you reported a person to AIV before starting this course - it isn't a requirement for editors to take. Pahunkat (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

ChromiumOverload, the responses to the questions look fine - have you tried tagging any pages for speedy deletion yet? Pahunkat (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: I cant find any but I will keep looking.ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 15:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, let me know when you find one ChromiumOverload. In the meantime, the next section is below. Pahunkat (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Revision Deletion and Oversight

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?

I would contact someone from this list Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests - Wikipedia or is it is a privacy or of serious importance I would use the wikipedia IRC Channel #wikipedia-en-revdel.

Y I don’t use IRC because of some problems that happened with a provider a while ago, but that is just personal choice

If you believe that it's so serious it needs oversight, how would you request that?

I would Use REDWARN to send a report to the oversight team.

Or the EmailUser function.

@Pahunkat: I finished! ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 18:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

All good!

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 (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.

Be careful about this. BGates is ambiguous and doesn't necessarily represent Bill Gates - for example Bob Gates. Real names are permitted. If you see them editing the article of another "BGates" or related topic then a UAA report is warranted - otherwise keep an eye on their edits until the username becomes clearer.

This type of username is allowed - usernames of the format X at company Y are good as they identify that it is an individual as opposed to a company

Previously I have said on this one to check if it is a sysop, but having gained more experience since I first started helping at CVUA I can tell you that sysops don't have this type of username.

If you ever notice blatant impersonation of yourself or another editor (e.g. this sort of username recreating your userpage on their userpage), report it straight to UAA (and AIV if applicable). The upper case "i" in the place of a lower case "l" is a classic impersonation trick.

Question: How about if they are a SPA involved in the creation of a draft about a business with the name "Lambeth Medical centre" (just made that up lol).

I would report as an offsneive username (You all are dumb). That said, if you're unsure about a username then it's best leave it alone or discuss with the editor, UAA is for blatant vios.

real names permitted

impersonation

WP:NOEMOJI, how about now?

I would ask them to change it on their talk page!

Btw if the request to change it was not followed then i would report it to UAA

ChromiumOverload, we're past halfway through the course! See the next section above. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Pahunkat I finished but I feel kinda unsure on how I did. ChromiumOverload (Talk 📨) 14:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That was great ChromiumOverload, see my comments. It's fine to feel unsure especially if it's the first time dealing with these policies. Could you answer any follow-up questions above - would you like me to give you more examples? Pahunkat (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Pahunkat I am back and was hoping we could still continue if that's ok with you?