User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Amkgp

Hello, welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your academy page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me at User talk:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Amkgp.

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.

Good faith and vandalism

1. Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.
Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.

Answer: Twinkle installed and enabled.

When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. It is important to recognize the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labeling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.

2. In your own words, why it is important to WP:AGF

Answer: WP:AGF is very important because it provides scope for newcomers, novice and experienced editors to resolve conflict on an edit through discussion and consensus that are unintentional in nature or done due to lack of knowledge.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: In Wikipedia, a good faith edit is a edit that is carried to improve and contribute to an article whereas a vandalism edit is a edit that is carried to jeopardize an article data by adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. In simple words, if anyone tries to make it better, that's a good faith edit and if trying to make it worse, that's vandalism.

The key here is "intention". If an editor intends to help Wikipedia, and the edit is considered disruptive, they are still considered a "good faith" editor especially the new editor does not aware their edits are disruptive. Vandalism is a "deliberate attempt" to harm Wikipedia. Editor might edit adds incorrect or unsourced information and this does not necessarily mean a user is a vandal; the key is their "intention". Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

4. How do we deal with a bad faith IP editor?

Answer: For a bad faith registered user, warn and educate vandals through discussions, advice to correct their mistake on the edit. If repetitive vandalism are made after that, final warn them. If still it continues, discuss and report to Administrators to take action. For a bad faith IP editor, revert the vandal edit made with explanation. If again done warn them not to do so with a notice of IP being blocked. If still continues report to Administrators for IP blocking.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

5. Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. Please revert and provide reason/explanation and hist diff(s).

Answer i: { The diff } Revert reason: As per Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmad Cultural Centre, its popularly known as Kuwait opera house. It would be a bit confusing for a new knowledge seeker if it is labelled as cultural centre.

. Cassiopeia^(talk)

Answer ii: { The diff } Revert reason: The IP editor changes a data and explains the edit as "Fixed incorrect information", but does not provide any source to verify the claim. The IP editor may be right or may be wrong that can be confirmed only if edit was supported by a reference. Thus,the edit stands reverted.

. We also check the source to verify the info. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii: { The diff } Revert reason:The IP editor tries to put TTG as a info, but its a disambiguation page with no page related to subject. The editor is made to understand through comments in revert summary. Here, the editor intends to add something without knowing what is happening by putting the data with link.

. Cassiopeia^(talk)

Vandalism

Answer i: { The diff } Revert reason: The IP editor deleted a wikipedia linked data without any reason, a kind of disruptive editing.

.

Answer ii: { The diff } Revert reason: The registered editor had spammed the page which is WP:Vandalism and reverted immediately. The user was blocked indefinitely immediately after by an Administrator. Also, requested protection for page at WP:RPP. Update: The history has been removed from public archives [1]

. Cassiopeia^(talk)

Answer iii: { The diff } Revert reason: The registered editor had spammed the page which is WP:Vandalism and reverted immediately.

. Cassiopeia^(talk)

Amkgp Good day. Any question regrading the assignment, please let me know here. For other questions not relating to the assignments, ping me on the talk page of this subpage . Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp Hi, have you finished with the assignment. If so kindly ping me and let me know. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Yes, completed the assignment. Amkgp (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp Hi, see the comments above and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to next assessment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia What happened to my 'Vandalism Answer i'? It seems review/feedback missing. Amkgp (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp Hi, reviewed. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Ready to move on to next assessment. Amkgp (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

When you use Twinkle to warn a user, you have a number of options to choose from: you can select the kind of warning (for different offences), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4, for increasing severity). Knowing which warning to issue and what level is very important. Further information can be found at WP:WARN and WP:UWUL.

Please answer the following questions

(1) Why do we warn users?

Answer: The purpose of user warnings is to guide good-faith testers and dissuade bad-faith vandals or editors engaging in WP:DISRUPT.

. The purpose is to "educate" the editors on constructive editing, especially those who are new to Wikipedia and to "deter" them of such actions with stronger warnings leads up to a block.

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

Answer: After receiving Level 4 warning, if the editor engages in cases of gross, extreme, or numerous vandalism it may be appropriate to use the Level 4im warning.

. good. 4im is only for widespread and particularly egregious vandalism and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Yes as per WP:SUBST#User talk namespace, we can substitute a template tag by adding "subst:" to it. For example, use {{subst:test5}} instead of {{test5}}.

. It is done to ensure that the message on the talk page will not change even if the template is changed. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: We should immediately report to Administrators via WP:AIV

. Cassiopeia^(talk)

(5) Please give examples and please do the substitution (using {{Tlsubst|''name of template''}}) of three different warnings with three different levels (not different levels of the same warning and excluding the test edit warning levels referred to below), that you might need to use while recent changes patrolling and explain what they are used for.

Answer i:

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Level 1 – A notice – Assumes good faith. Generally includes "Welcome to Wikipedia" or some variant.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii:

Please do not add inappropriate images to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Level 2 – Caution – No faith assumption, just a note. (This warning is related to images here)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii:

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to upload media files with false or lacking copyright and source information, you may be blocked from editing. Please make sure you have read and understood our image use policy before making any further uploads. If you have questions, ask at the copyright question page.

Level 3 – Warning – Assumes bad faith, cease and desist. Generally includes "Please stop". (This warning is related to files here)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp See assignment 2 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Completed assignment. Amkgp (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp See above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Tools

Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#Tools includes a list of tools and resources for those who want to fight vandalism with a more systematic and efficient approach.

What you have been doing so far is named the old school approach. As well as manually going through Special:RecentChanges, it includes undos, "last clean version" restores, and manually warning users.

There are a large number of tool which assist users in the fight against vandalism. They range from tools which help filter and detect vandalism to tools which will revert, warn and report users.

Twinkle

Twinkle, as you know, is very useful. It provides three types of rollback functions (vandalism, normal and AGF) as well as an easy previous version restore function (for when there are a number of different editors vandalising in a row). Other functions include a full library of speedy deletion functions, and user warnings. It also has a function to propose and nominate pages for deletion, to request page protection to report users to WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:SPI, and other administrative noticeboards.

User creation log

In my early days of fighting vandalism on Wikipedia, one of the strategies I would use to find vandalism was to patrol the account creation log. This is located at Special:Log/newusers, and it logs every time a new user account is created on Wikipedia. You'll notice that new accounts with no contributions so far will have a red "contribs" links, whereas new accounts with some contributions will have blue "contribs" links. One great way not only to find vandalism, but welcome new users to Wikipedia is to check the blue contribs links that come in.

Rollback

See rollback, this user right introduces an easy rollback button (which with one click reverts an editor's contributions). I'll let you know when I think you're ready to apply for the rollback user right.

STiki

STiki is an application that you download to your computer, and it provides you with diffs which either it or User:ClueBot NG have scored on their possibility of being uncontructive, and you are given the option to revert it as vandalism, revert it assuming good faith, mark it as innocent, or abstain from making a judgment on the diff. In order to use STiki, you need one of the following: (1) the rollback permission, (2) at least 1000 article edits (in the article namespace, not talk/user pages), or (3) special permission via Wikipedia talk:STiki.

Huggle

Huggle is also an application you download to your computer which presents you diffs (orders them on the likelihood of being unconstructive edits and on the editor's recent history) from users not on its whitelist. It allows you to revert vandalism, warn and reports users in one click. The rollback permission is required to use Huggle.

Make sure you keep in mind that some edits that seem like vandalism can be test edits. This happens when a new user is experimenting and makes accidental unconstructive edits. Generally, these should be treated with good faith, especially if it is their first time, and warned gently. The following templates are used for test edits: {{subst:uw-test1}}, {{subst:uw-test2}} and {{subst:uw-test3}}.

I just wanted to make sure you know about Special:RecentChanges, if you use the diff link in a different window or tab you can check a number of revisions much more easily. If you enable Hovercards in the Hover section of your preferences, you can view the diff by just hovering over it. Alternately, you can press control-F or command-F and search for "tag:". some edits get tagged for possible vandalism or section blanking.

Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Please include at least two test edits and at least two appropriate reports to AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below

#	Type	Diff of your revert	Your comment - If you report to AIV please include the diff	CASS' Comment
Example	Unsourced	0	Delete of sourced content without explanation - give {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
1	Test edit	1	Deleted content as it should be (TBD). First edit seems to be a test - gave {{subst:uw-test1}}	N. It is not a test edit. The fight was postponed due to COVID-19 and is back on on May 9, 2020. See communication section for what consistent a test edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
2	Test edit	2	Deleted content as it seems to be an un-intended first edit related to article - gave {{subst:uw-test1}}	N - A Kid Named Cudi is a mixed tap by the subject. Not a test edit at all. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
3	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	3	Adding unsourced content. Reported to AIV for continuing repeated behavior, talk - gave {{subst:uw-unsourced3}}	N. Pls provide hist diff next time on any report - as like this one - here. First of all the edit is not a vandalism but is unsourced (you need to reread WP:V a few times as vandalism is act of "deliberately" harm Wikipedia. See here on third paragraph that stated "Hustlers is based on Jessica Pressler’s December 2015 New York magazine article “The Hustlers at Scores,”". The report was rejected - - see here
4	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	4	Act of vandalism by wrong edits. Reported to AIV for attempt after level-4, talk - gave {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}}	Y even thought the admin accepted the report and place a short blocked - see here, the issue here is that you placed a 4th level warning see here and then report the editor before the editor made his 5th vandalism edit. Unless is widespread, extreme vandalism edits, we also wait until the the editor makes their vandalism edit after the 4 level warning. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
5	WP:NPOV	5	No 'verifiability' and contains commentary in form of 'bias' opinions - gave {{subst:uw-npov1}}	N unsourced yes, but would not considered NPOV. See communication section for NPOV. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
6	WP:Fringe theories	6	Unsourced content added. information is WP:FRINGE in nature - gave {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}	Unourced yes, but I dont know much about Karmic astrology to think the edit was a fringe theroeis for this one. You have to be sure it is to revert as fringe theories. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
7	WP:SPAM	7	An attempt of WP:LINKSPAM was reverted - gave {{subst:uw-spam1}}	Y. Spam usually is an edit for promotion such as a link for live event broadcast to get editor to pay and watch. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
8	Talking on the article	8	Removal of content and posting irrelevant questions - gave {{subst:uw-delete3}}	Y More so a removed/deletion of sourced content here. Should place vandal-1. You need to place level one warning first and not jump to level 3 especially the editor is new (their first edit) - see here
9	Unsourced	9	Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material - gave {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
10	Vandalism	10	Addition of non-sense text - gave {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}	N it is considered a test edit especially this is the the editor first edit - see here. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
11	Vandalism	11	Restore/remove the offensive text to previous revision - gave {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
12	WP:PROMOTION	12	Promotion for a person reverted - gave {no warning} (already partially blocked IP account)	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
13	WP:DISRUPT	13	Disruptive editing. IP account has history of disruptive edits (proof)- gave {{subst:uw-disruptive3}}	N it is considered vandalism. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
14	WP:NOTABOUTYOU	14	Reverted self-promotion as edit and username matches - gave {{subst:uw-advert1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
15	Vandalism	15	This was an vandalism attempt by user, which is reverted - gave {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
16	Vandalism	16	An attempt to vandalize 'title' is reverted - gave {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
17	Vandalism	17	An attempt to add an expression in lead section - gave {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
18	Vandalism (report to AIV)	18	Disruptive editing even after level-4 warning. Reverted the edit and reported to AIV - gave {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}}	N - see here. It is an unsourced edit. I dont know wheather the info added is fault/incorrect. Do not vandalism is blatantly vandalized the page. note-at times continuing disruptive a page even though is not vandalsim could e temporary block from editing. Cassiopeia^(talk)
19	Vandalism (report to AIV)	19	IP editor cotinously vandalizing articles even after level-4 warning. Reverted the edit and reported to AIV - gave {no warning as level-4 was present}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
20	Disruptive	20	User reverting previous rollback without adding source - gave {{subst:uw-unsourced3}}	N unsourced might not be disruptive if the info is correct. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
21	Disruptive	21	User changing many figures without any source/explanation - gave {{subst:uw-disruptive1}}	N unsourced might not be disruptive if the info is correct. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
22	test edit	22	An attempt of testing was reverted - gave {{subst:uw-test1}}	N even thought it was the first edit by the editor, the edit might not/might be a test edit ( I am not 100% convince that the editor was "trying" to see if they can "actually make an edit". Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
23	test edit	23	An attempt to remove blank space - gave {{subst:uw-test1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
24	NPOV	24	Added content is not adhered to WP:NPOV - gave {{subst:uw-npov1}}	Y it would be a vandalism edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
25	NPOV	25	Added content is not adhered to WP:NPOV - gave {{subst:uw-npov1}}	Y it would be a promotional edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
26	WP:PROMOTION / SPAM	26	An attempt of WP:PROMOTION was reverted - gave {{subst:uw-advert2}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
27	WP:PROMOTION / SPAM	27	An attempt to add web-links WP:SPAM reverted - gave {{subst:uw-spam1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
28	Vandalism	28	An attempt to vandalize about the person was reverted - gave {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
29	Vandalism (report to AIV)	29	Repetitive attempts to vandalize about the person after warnings using non-sense text. Reverted the edit and reported to AIV - gave {{subst:uw-vandalism4}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
30	test edit	30	Adding no nonsensical squabble dtghj reverted - gave {{subst:uw-test1}}	Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp Good day. Do download/install WP:STiki and you can use this vandalism tool for the assignment above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia What is the 'Test edit' means here? I'm bit unclear about it. Amkgp (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I used STiki, but found it little cumbersome and slow in response. It also gives errors many times on submission being unsuccessful and restarts. Can I use Twinkle for completion of the assignment? I don't have rollback permission to use Huggle. Also, I find Special:RecentChanges very useful to study different types of tackling vandalism. Amkgp (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, Hi you can use either or both Twinkle and STiki as I also use a combination of vandalism tools as well. However to find vandalism edits would be a little easier via STiki then Recent Changes. As for Huggle, when you have completed this course then you can apply it. Pls re-read Wikipedia:Vandalism for the question about 'test edit". Let me know if you need furhter assistance. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Completed the assignment. Please review. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, Please see the above comments and the notes section before and read WP:V carefully before doing the additional exerices given above. Ping me if you have any question or need to clarify my comments/notes. If you not sure about the edit, then leave it and let other more experienced or the editors who know subject better to work on the edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia completed the additional tasks. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, See above comments and kindly answer 3 more additional questions.11:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia completed the additional tasks. Hope I have done all correctly. Amkgp (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, Reviewed. Let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move to next assignment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Ready to move to next assignment. Amkgp (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, All the test edit revert are wrong. Pls reread my comment and example again and go through each word carefully in this message thread and ask yourself, is the editor trying to find out if they actually could make an edit in Wikipedia in good faith? We go back to Assignment one here what is the editor intention?. Info and guidelines are given but you have to make the right judgement call in practice and know how to apply them and why you think what type of edit the editor made.

Amkgp, Examples of test edits as below:

1. HERE-1 - editor removed the last name of the subject of their very first edit and then replaced it back on the next edit (2nd edit) - HERE -2 - This is called "self revert test edit" - editor tried to an edit to see if they could actually make an edit in Wikipedia.

2.Same here - self revert test edit HERE-3] adding random character and self revert here - HERE-4

3.HERE-5 the editor adding random (look like typing on right hand site of the keyboard) on their fist edit - this is test editing.

Hope the above examples help. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Why did you ping me? Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 14:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC) The4lines, Sorry, placed the wrong user as I was working on your and Amkgp review. Please ignore my ping. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Notes: 1. Test edit - test edit is the first edit or first two edits (make in a quick succession) from an editor who "try" to make an edit and wanted to know if they "can actually" make an edit in Wikipedia (note: Most sites, besides the social media sites), we can make an edit in the site). We usually see a "new" editor make an test edit in the following forms (1) add or remove a character/alphabet of a word, (2) add a space(s), (3) add no nonsensical squabble such as "skfjsofjso" or just state "hi" (if the editor has been edit for some time and state hi then it is not a test edit). Sometimes, an editor try to make a test edit (removed an alphabet from a word), then add it back on their second edit. In Huggle we have a template "self revert test edit" that we could place in the editor talk page.

2. WP:NPOV - neutral point of view - when we add/change a content in the Wikipedia page, we need to write the content in neutral point of view which means no enhancing of any form of the content especially the subject. Example, we could place Jessica Alba is an Amemrican actress, but if we put "Jessica Alba is the most beautiful actress in American" then that the content is not ahered to NPOV. Another example, if India beats Australia in cricket with the scoring of 115 - 70. We just put India won the match or India won the match with the scoring of 115-70. If we put India smasch Australia, or India took the victory and put Australia to shame as the match was in Sydney then it is considered not adhere to NPOV. We mainly report the fact, simple without put all the promotional words to enhance the info. The info speaks the fact in "plain manner"

3. Disruptive - it not a vandalism edit but it continues disruptive then the editor could be reported to AIV. Pls note, vandalsim 9back to Assignment 1 : is an blatant act to harm Wikipedia. We also ask ourselves when revert a vandalsim edit, is the editor trying to harm Wikipedia or being disruptive because not aware/refuse to listen to advice.

4.Warning level - in Assignment 2 - we also place level one warning and if the editor continue the same fashion of edit then we increase the level subsequently (back to assignment 1 - assume good faith especialy with new editors) unless their edits are so prevalent or place extreme damage to the article such as extremely disguising langues the we place higher level of warning at first.

Shared IP tagging

There are a number of IP user talk page templates which show helpful information to IP users and those wishing to warn or block them. There is a list of these templates

{{Shared IP}} - For general shared IP addresses.
{{ISP}} - A modified version specifically for use with ISP organizations.
{{Shared IP edu}} - A modified version specifically for use with educational institutions.
{{Shared IP gov}} - A modified version specifically for use with government agencies.
{{Shared IP corp}} - A modified version specifically for use with businesses.
{{Shared IP address (public)}} - A modified version specifically for use with public terminals such as in libraries, etc.
{{Mobile IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with a mobile device's IP.
{{Dynamic IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with dynamic IPs.
{{Static IP}} - A modified version specifically for use with static IPs which may be used by more than one person.

Each of these templates take two parameters, one is the organisation to which the IP address is registered (which can be found out using the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page. The other is for the host name (which is optional) and can also be found out from the links at the bottom of the IP's contribution page.

Also, given that different people use the IP address, older messages are sometimes refused so as to not confuse the current user of the IP. Generally any messages for the last one-two months are removed, collapsed, or archived. The templates available for this include:

{{OW}} for when the messages are deleted from the talk page.
{{Old IP warnings top}} and {{Old IP warnings bottom}} for collapsing the user warnings and leaving them on the talk page.
{{Warning archive notice}} for when the messages are archived, and that archiving follows the usually naming sequence (that is, /Archive 1).

NOTE: All of the templates in this section are not substituted (so don't use "subst:").

Hi Amkgp, Posted Assignment 4 above. No exercises for this assignment but only some reading material. Once you have done reading, pls let me know so I would post Assignment 5 for you. Cheers. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Gone through the readings and ready to proceed for assignment. Amkgp (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult users

Harassment and trolling

Occasionally, some vandals will not appreciate your good work and try to harass or troll you. In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, you should not engage with them and leave a note at WP:ANI. If they vandalise your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. Please read WP:DENY.

Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

Answer: As per WP:DENY, we should deny recognition to trolls and vandals because they usually suffer from chronic alienation and real or perceived powerlessness and seek recognition and infamy by interrupting and frustrating the Wikipedia project and community.

Pls provide the answer in your own words on all the questions requested instead of copy the exact same words from the link for the reason we need to know you understand/comprehend the guidelines. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer again (in your own words): Trolls and vandals should be avoided because they are non-productive, decreases the efficiency on the working of editors by causing anger, stress and interruptions. Also, they harm the prevailing working environment within the Wikipedia community.

Trolls actions usually stem from seeking attention/recognition and should be as their goal is to make people angry and disrupt the encyclopedia. By reverting their edits and refusing to engage with them except to leave a warning or report them to AIV, we prevent them from having the satisfaction of successfully "trolling" someone and discourage this behaviour. If editor asks questions, we should reply but in a mechanical way and not engaging in their troll behaviour, repeating the same mechanical answer if needed. The main point/goal of the trolls is that they want attention. We dont feed them and dont get mad by denying them the recognition that they seek is critical to countering them. Cassiopeia^(talk)

because they harm Wikipedia project. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: In case of good faith user, they simply look for justification behind the action and generally ask for help and clarify doubts for e.g. here whereas a troll's only goal is to annoy by provoking towards a unhealthy and in-appropriate reaction.

. Sometimes good faith editors would get upset/annoyed as well and convey their message which might not be pleasant for your standard. Many times troll might not use personal attacks but being rude, condescending, put down, name calling and etc. To check on the editors past edits/talk page would help; however, the bottom line is that trolls want to annoy you and good faith editors annoyed at you and that is the subtle different. Btw Teahouse is about helping/answering anything about 'editing'. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Emergencies

I hope this never happens, but as you participate in counter-vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible that you may come across a threat of physical harm. In the past, we have had vandals submit death threats in Wikipedia articles, as well as possible suicide notes. The problem is, Wikipedia editors don't have the proper training to evaluate whether these threats are credible in most cases.

Fortunately, there's a guideline for cases like this. Please read Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm carefully and respond to the questions below.

Who should you contact when you encounter a threat of harm on Wikipedia? What details should you include in your message?

Answer: As per WP:EMERGENCY, immediately email emergency@wikimedia.org with details of the threat. If one is in immediate danger, call the local emergency services. In our message we should include the name of the page where the threat was made, or a diff.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

What should you do if an edit looks like a threat of harm, but you suspect it may just be an empty threat (i.e. someone joking around)?

Answer: Contact Wikipedia administrators privately.

or contact emergency@wikimedia.org. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Sock pupperty

Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and answer the question below

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

Answer: As per WP:SOCK, Sock puppetry takes various forms:(1)Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address, (2)creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions, (3)Using another person's account (piggybacking), (4)reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users and (5)persuading friends or colleagues to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry). We should report at WP:SPI.

Pls provide the answer in your own words on all the questions requested instead of copy the exact same words from the link for the reason we need to know you understand/comprehend the guidelines. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer again in your own words: The various forms of sock-puppetry includes (1) by using different IP address to vandalize same or different articles in quick succession (2) Creating new accounts to avoid block and other sanctions (3) Using other's account for wrongful activities without the original account holder's consent (4) Re-activating very old accounts to evade administrator's attention (5) Encourage a large group of people to create compromised accounts to justify wrongful acts. To stop sock-puppetry, we should report at WP:SPI immediately.

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Amkgp, see Assignment 5 above. Btw, I saw you added your name on the CUVA and kindly note that will be also added/removed by the trainer. Best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, Cassiopeia I think I got the instruction wrong. Amkgp (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia assignment completed. Amkgp (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Amkgp, Ok thanks for informing I will look at them either late today or tmrw. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Amkgp, Pls see above comments and when you have answer the questions again in your own words, ping me. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia requested answers updated as per own words. Amkgp (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Amkgp, See comments above and let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move to next assignment. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thanks for the in-depth explanation. Ready to proceed for next assignment. Amkgp (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion

Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only an administrator can protect or delete pages; however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion or request protection. If you have Twinkle installed, you can use the Twinkle menu to request page protection or speedy deletion (the RPP or CSD options).

Protection

Please read the protection policy.

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

Answer: Semi-protected should be implemented when pages like Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) and others have had a recent high level of media or social media interest or occurrence of controversial incident is vandalized repeatedly by new or unregistered users, sock-puppets etc causing significant amount of disruption to the page.; Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Pending changes level 1 protected should be implemented to pages that are regularly vandalized at a lower scale by new or IP users etc causing lower amount of disruption to the page but giving an opportunity for them to edit while keeping them hidden from the view of most readers until those changes are accepted by a reviewer.; Y.The key is low volumn but persistent over time. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Articles that are prone to frequent content disputes and edit warring and pages that have generic file names like File:Photo.jpg are fully protected. This protection enables only Administrators to edit the page.

. However, permanent full protection applied to articles for long period of time is rare. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: Pages that are recreated repeatedly without significant improvements(if there is a scope to do so) even after deletion as they were found not fit for Wikipedia is protected by placing "salting" protection. Mostly, promotional page for a non-notable like that of person, organisation etc; attack pages and plain old offensive page names like the ones mentioned Special:ProtectedTitles are salted. As per WP:SALT , to re-create a salted page one should either contact an administrator or use the deletion review process.

. Salting prevents users from creating a page with a given title. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer: In rare cases, when a talk page either that of an article or user gets attacked for heavy vandalism or abuse, then they are semi-protected. Its generally avoided as it hinders constructive improvements, criticism and commentary that are/may be beneficial from new and IP editors other than auto-confirmed users.; Y. IT is only done if the talk page is receiving large amounts of offensive vandalism, and it is only implemented for a short time. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Answer i: Food chain temporary semi-protection request here; Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii: Dilip Ghosh (politician) temporary semi-protection request here; Y. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

1. In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?

Answer: A page needs to be be speedy deleted when an article meets one or more speedy deletion criteria. The main motive of CSD is to delete pages directly and that clearly does not qualify discussion on retention based on the following agreed common parameters. Common examples include advertisement/promotional pages, author blanked pages, nonsense material and copyright violations etc. The three most common criteria in terms of frequency of occurrence are discussed in details:

General criteria - The scope of this applies for all types of pages with exclusions that falls under other specific criteria. They are [G1. Patent nonsense]-consisting nonsense or meaningless material, [G2. Test pages]-pages created to test in Wikipedia. To be noted that sandbox sub-pages are subjected to this but not the sandbox itself, [G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes]-pages containing fake information or hoaxes, [G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion]-unchanged copied pages from previous pages that resulted deletion after discussion, [G5. Creations by banned or blocked users]-pages created by banned or blocked users;e.g. [2], [G6. Technical deletions]-it includes some uncontroversial maintenance related pages, category and templates [G7. Author requests deletion]-when author requests for deletion in good faith, [G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page]-for talk-pages, sub-pages and file-pages, [G9. Office actions]-initiated by Wikimedia foundation, [G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose]-basically attack pages, [G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion]-exclusively promotional pages and un-encyclopedic in nature, [G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement]-pages that violate copyright;e.g. [3], [G13. Abandoned Drafts and Articles for creation submissions]-draft and AfC submissions stale for 6 months and [G14. Unnecessary disambiguation pages]
Article criteria - For article(main) namespaces. They are [A1. No context]-articles lacking sufficient data to identify the subject of the page, [A2. Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project]-articles not in English and exists with the same content as in another Wikimedia project, [A3. No content]-pages consisting only tags, external links only or boilerplate of article wizard, [A5. Transwikied articles]-contains dictionary definition like from Wiktionary, [A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)]-articles lacking WP:BIO, WP:ORG, WP:WEB except educational institution;e.g. [4], [A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings)]-articles lacking WP:NALBUM, [A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic]-duplicates from an existing English Wikipedia topic and [A11. Obviously invented]-made from self cooked up materials
Redirect criteria - For redirect cases like [R2. Cross-namespace redirects]-redirects from main namespace, [R3. Implausible typos]-redirects from misspellings and [R4. File namespace redirects with names that match Wikimedia Commons pages]-redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as in Wikimedia Commons.

Remaining criteria are uncommon when it comes to frequency of occurrences and are as follows: Files criteria - For files related (F1 to F11), Categories - For categories (C1, C2), User-Page - User and user-talks pages (U1 to U5), Template - Template related(T2, T3), Portal - For any portal related(P1, P2) and Exceptional (X2).

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

2. Correctly tag six pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons - they can be for any of the criteria and Pls provide the article names and provide the criteria. You can look up the articles from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section for G11 and G12 only and New Page Patrol for A7/A9). (Dont need to tag them but just make a dummy edit such as add additional space and revert the edit so I may know when you read the article and which version you read). For COPYVIO pls check the text vs the source by using Earwig Copy detector.

Answer i (promotional) (G11): Draft:ElArchivo.net diff i as per WP:LINKFARM and WP:PROMOTION

. It is not considering a promotional article. Cassiopeia^(talk)

Explain - The draft contains external links and out of two statements one says Added elarchivo.net, an online archive/search engine, since 1990 points to a list of1. External links or Internet directories. - a case of WP:LINKFARM which comes under WP:PROMOTION. ~Amkgp ✉ 10:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The link is the search files.the article content is not written in promotional way. It is different an article does not pass the notability guide liens vs promotion article. see note section. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer ii (promotional) (G11): Draft:Android Wedakarayo diff ii as per WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:PROMOTION

as per THIS it does not indicated the page was deleted because of G11. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Explain - I thought it to be (G11): because its a case of unambiguous advertising or promotion. The deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androidwedakarayo also confirms my assertion, which I found now while going through the user activity.~Amkgp ✉ 10:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, it was deleted in AfD (I can see the article since it is deleted so I will take the AfD outcome). Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer iii (Copyvio) (G12): Brightest Blue diff iii Copyvio report

as per your link - here is no copyvio of the version you indicated. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Explain - As far I remember copyvios reported 30-40% copied material from the website. It should not show 0% as of now because I used revision ID to compare. I am too surprised by the result. I am not adding anything more to my explaination because I have no additional data/proof but from my side I can say it indeed reported copy similarity that why I proceeded with the example. ~Amkgp ✉ 11:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

May be next time take a screen shot(s). Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer iV (Copyvio) (G12): Kathrin Muegge diff iv Copyvio report (Its not a copyright violation as its content are in public domain declared in references section)
St. Anne’s High School, Fort, Mumbai diff iv Copyvio report

Kathrin Muegge {{However, you added the PD info later and not sure you actually notice it or act it later because it did not get deleted.

St. Anne’s High School, Fort, Mumbai - This is a quote so no copyvio violation. THIS -2 is not enough to considered copyvio, what we could do is to WP:REVDEL it. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Explain - Its not exactly copyvios as you explained above and at the end. I took a collection of phases together and considered a copy case which isn't I realized now.~Amkgp ✉ 11:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I have explained to you some brief info on copyvio and I will add a few more in the note section. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer iV (A7/A9): B. M. Rahul Bharadwaj diff iv as per WP:NBADMINTON and WP:A7

. it is not a A7 - it has WP:Credible claim of significance. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Explain - I misinterpreted the World Championships

ok, see note section.

Answer V (A7/A9): Draft:Samarth Phore diff v as per WP:GNG and WP:A7 WP:G11

G7 i ment G11 (G7 is author request for deletion) but not A7. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Explain - The deletion record here says G11. Apart from WP:GNG the person was not notable and WP:A7 says This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant

I meant G11, but I was asking for A7/A9. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, See Assignment 6 above. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I have completed except CSD tagging because of reasons I mentioned here. Please review them. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, Kindly rework on Q1 Speedy deletion (need a lot more description/ elaborate of the CSDs in your own words and you have yet to answer Question i and ii for Speedy deletion. Let me know when you have done that. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, Ok I will rewrite as you instructed but Q1 was asked to be "very briefly no need to go through the criteria". Amkgp (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, Yes Q1 was aked for brief answer, but your answer is way too brief. I need to know you understand the CSDs so I need you to elaborate them. Also pls see the talk page as I have a few request of hist diffs. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, Ok and I have answered the request on course talk page. Amkgp (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Q1 re-answered as per own words and understanding. Amkgp (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, I need you "elaborate / provide description of Q1" in your own words." What you provide is not enought, need to describ them in sentences so I may know you understand the guidelines since you have been pointed out by other editors/admin of the CSD nomination you have tagged. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia OK I will ping you when done as suggested. Amkgp (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I have answered Q1 CSD. I have explained in own words that are not in bold and italic. Please review them. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, As for the CSD questions I have change a little of the requirements and pls re-read the questions again. For copyvio, make sure only large amount of copyvio texts copies form sources to be considred violation of copyvio. Proper nouns, document names, short common phrase, direct quotes, are not considered copyvio. Please read the WP:COPYVIO and WP:PROMOTION and WP:A7 and WP:A9 carefully and reread them if needed prior work on the assignment. Let me know if you need any help. Stay safe and best. (Btw I have added test edit example on communication section on Assignment 3, pls read them). Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Done ! Please review. Thank you. ~Amkgp (✉) 15:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Please review the remaining completed answers of CSD. Thank you. ~Amkgp (✉) 01:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, See reviews above and thank you for providing all the diffs which help alot on reviewing the above. Please explain why you think you would tag as per your answer so I could understand your reasoning prior I explain why the answers were wrong and provide you with some notes. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, provided the explanations. ~Amkgp ✉ 11:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, see comments. I am heading to bed soon, so I will provide you the note (explanations and applications) of G11, G12, A7 and GNG vs SNG and CSD when I am free by this weekend. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Alright. ~Amkgp ✉ 11:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)