User:Polo/CVUA/Pratyya Ghosh

Pratyya Ghosh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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 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.

Good faith and vandalism

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 recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labelling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.

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 that kind of edit which was edited- having a good faith. More the edit was made in order to help wikipedia but unfortunately the edit was not helpful for WP.The newcomers mostly goes through this kind of edits.

Again vandalism edit is removal, adding or change of an article deliberately which is an attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Means intentional unhelpful and bad edit which makes wikipedia somehow bad.

Yes. The difference between good faith and vandalism is that contributors who are acting in good faith are trying to improve WP, but have there edit have caused disruption and clearly unnecessary; vandals are those who expressly cause disruption. If it is an edit was an accident by mistake, or done by someone that they'd don't know that it was already distrupting WP, it is good faith. If the editor obviously and intentionally knew that they would caused bad effects, it is vandalism or bad faith.

Please find and revert three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. Please warn the editors with the correct template and give the diffs of your reverts below. If you need help with using diffs, just ask me.

Good faith

Vandalism

That's great! Fantastic. Now, the good faith revert in Sakow District may be considered as vandalism because it's all gibberish and nonsense characters. Maybe it's another language that's why it is gibberish. Also, in University Students' Council (Malta) vandal revert, it may be considered as good faith because what the user did makes sense and is somewhat true. Look at the revision carefully. Mediran (t • c) 12:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

As you know, we are using Twinke, which is very useful for warning users. 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:UWUL.

Please answer the following questions.

Why do we warn users? We warn users when they make vandalism or bad edits. We warn users to stop them from this kind of bad and vandal editings and to make them understand that their editing was bad

When would a 4im warning be appropriate? In cases of extreme or severe vandalism it is appropriate to use the Level 4im warning.Also if an user or editor continues vandalism after Level 3 warning then it is appropriate to use 4im warning.

What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again? I'll report the user to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Then an administrator will review that user's contribution and take the final decision whether the user will be blocked or not.

If a user has vandalised twice but has not received any warnings for it, what might you do? In that case I'll myself warn the user. And If I'm confused about it then I'll report that user to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

That's great! Cheers! But I see one flaw. Now, if you are going to report vandals, you can report it to Administrator intervention against vandalism. Using Twinkle is for me the best way and the easiest way to report a user at AIV. Mediran (t • c) 13:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

PS Level 4im warnings are those "only-warnings". Only warnings are the first and last warnings. These warnings are used for obvious sockpuppet vandals or a returning long term vandalism. Mediran (t • c) 13:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Please give examples (using {{subst:name of template}}) of three different warnings (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.

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}}.

{{subst:uw-vandalism1}}, is used for an user who've made mistake one more time which undid by another user.It's not any warning.

{{subst:uw-create1}}, is used to say a user that his/her crated article did not followed Wikipedia:List of policies and that will be removed. In this template the user is given some instructions like using sandbox for test edit and read the Wikipedia:Your first article page and the Wikipedia:Introduction page before any edit.

{{subst:uw-delete2}}, is used to make an user understand about his mistake as he/she removed some content of an Wikipedia article.The template also says this that he/she needs to describe the description for his removal with an edit summary.There also said that if the user needed some help then he can free to ask.

--Pratyya ^{(have a chat?)} 14:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That's almost good. Your choice were perfect but {{subst:uw-create1}} warnings were more used in new page patrolling. But don't worry, that warning is also helpful for recent changes patrolling. Your next task will coming soon! Mediran (t • c) 01:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

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

I've found 3 vandalism in 1 user. I don't know whether the IP adress was angry with me. At first he made vandalism for 2 times in page List of One Day International cricket matches played by Bangladesh and Kenya crated by me. Then it vandalised my talk page!!!! By removing a barnstar from my talk page. I've warned that user and reported it to AIV. And now that IP is blocked.--Pratyya ^{(have a chat?)} 11:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

#	Diff of edit	Your comment (optional). If you report to AIV please include the diff	Marker's comment (optional)
1	List of One Day International cricket matches played by Bangladesh and Kenya	no comment	no comment
2	List of One Day International cricket matches played by Bangladesh and Kenya	no comment	no comment
3	My talk	IP account 180.234.42.16 is evidently a spambot or a compromised account.Just watch it's recent history.I just can't understand how could he/she do these. (at this link)
4	List of One Day International cricket matches played by Bangladesh and Canada	See at User talk:180.234.47.86
5	my talk	see at User talk:103.10.76.161
6	diff	comment
7	diff	comment
8	diff	comment
9	diff	comment
10	diff	comment
11	diff	comment
12	diff	comment
13	diff	comment
14	diff	comment
15	diff	comment

Off to your next task. Your reversion was perfect. Yehey! But next time, please include the diff of your reversion and not the diff of the vandal. Thanks! Mediran (t • c) 04:15, 28 December 2012 (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 throughSpecial: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.

Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool

Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool monitors the RSS feed and flags edits with common vandalism terms. It's a very simple tool, but which is useful for not having to go check each and every diff on Recent Changes.

Twinkle

The first tool I want to mention is Twinkle, it's a very useful and I strongly suggest you enable it (in the Gadgets section of your preferences). 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 (which we'll get to later).

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 consists of (1) a component that listens to the RecentChanges feed and scores edits on their possibility of being uncontructive; and (2) An application which scans through the most recent revisions on pages and scores the possibility of them being uncontructive.

Huggle

Huggle is a Windows program which parses (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.

Dealing with difficult users

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?

Motivations for vandalism (as distinguished from abuse like harassment and edit warring) range from a desire for recognition and infamy, to an aspiration to frustrate the Wikipedia project and community. Vandalism is encouraged by offering such users exceptional notice. This glorification of vandalism through infamy encourages Internet memes through reinforcement, where users imitate notorious or unique vandalism methods for amusement, to share in the infamy, or for the thrill of defying authority and/or the perception of destroying other users' work. Denying recognition and infamy removes the primary motivations for vandalism and disruption.And for this reason we deny recognition to troll and vandals.

--Pratyya ^{(have a chat?)} 06:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

- Please rephrase it and explain it in your own words. Do not copy other's works and please have it in your own way. Thanks. Mediran (t • c) 08:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Trolls and vandalism motivation are to defame the wikipedia community.When a user become frustrated or angry with another user or Wikipedia it tries to make frustrate wikipedia community and that is encouraged by offering exceptional notice to such users.Denying recognition and infamy removes the primary motivations for vandalism and disruption.And for this reason we deny recognition to troll and vandals.

--Pratyya ^{(have a chat?)} 08:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

- Y I'm a bit confused about your answer but it's passable alright. Mediran (t • c) 09:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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

You see a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit is a kind of discussion where an user asks another user why he reverted his/her edits. When you revert or convert or cahnge another user's work it's natural for you to be questioned from that user.He/she can ask you about the change. When this type of moment comes and another user asks you in a gentle way why I reverted or change their edits.And it is a good faith user asking .Here's an example- User talk:Pratyya Ghosh

I can show them practically. Just yesterday I was in a bad situation. a troll trying to harass me means an user tries to harass or vandalise me. It means when I reverted that user's edit, he/she became frustrated or angry and tries to make my name go down or make me feeling harass or make my page vandal etc. As my user page is protected so it tries to vandalise my talk page. It just vandalism in my experience. An example- User talk:Pratyya Ghosh. But you see my history for 27 December you'll see how many harassment are there.

--Pratyya ^{(have a chat?)} 06:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

- Please expound what you have presented. Thanks. Mediran (t • c) 08:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You must add your own way on how you are going to approach, tell or answer good faith editors or trolls in such situations when they ask you or harass you respectively. What could be the possible kind of answer or approach you can give to them? Mediran (t • c) 09:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Y I guess your answer is fair enough. Great job, your next question is coming up! Thanks! Mediran (t • c) 09:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

PS The best way I think to tell between a good faith user and a troll in such situations when they ask or harass you respectively is how they approach or engage you - if they're either friendly, assuming good faith, concern, then they are probably a GF user. Users who just harass or just abuse you might be trolls. Also, the first step if someone questions or doubted one of your reverts is check it first if his query in regards of the revert really was vandalism. Once you're confident that your revert was correct and there's nothing to worry about, you would then talk to them in a good manner of course. Mediran (t • c) 10:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If a user believes an edit of their which you reverted was not vandalism, and questioned you about it, what should you do?: Naturally it's possible. In that case I'll see the history again. Human makes mistake so could I. If really it was my mistake then I'll revert my mistake and say sorry to that user. But in the other hand if it was really an vandalism I'll make that user understand about vandalism and tell him/her not to make vandalism in future. But I'll not warn him that time as he wanted to know.

--Pratyya ^{(have a chat?)} 10:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

- Great answers. Off to your next task. Thanks! Mediran (t • c) 10:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion

Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only anadministrator 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 WP:PROTECT.

In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?: Semi-protected pages can be edited by auto-confirmed users and also administrators.

A page will be semi-protected for vandalism mainly.

In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?

Pending changes are for IP addresses or new users.It is used to supress vandalism.While allowing IPs edit pending changes are used as semi-protection alternative.So that is hidden and cannot be read by the most of the users while they're not reviewed by a reviewer.

In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?

Content disputes-
Vandalism- When a large number of auto-confirmed vandalise a page then the page is fully protected from vandalism.
"History only" review- When a deleted page goes under deletion review the admins can easily see the contents of the deleted page. But non-admins can't do that. But if an admin think the page is well then he/she may restore that blank or like previous.But with a deletation tag or any tag that suits.And will make that page fully protected. Then non-admins can change the page by using the history of that page.

Protected generic image names- Generic image names like File:map.jpg are fully protected so that a new version can't be uploaded.

--Pratyya ^{(have a chat?)} 10:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Here's one diff.

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

or

Current requests for protection

or

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

--Pratyya ^{(have a chat?)} 11:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha... your request for protection was successful! Great answers, semi-protection may apply for articles experiencing high levels of vandalism or edit warring from IPs and newbies. PC protection apply for infrequently-edited articles that are experiencing extreme vandalism or BLP violations from IPs and new users. Full protection applies for articles experiencing persistent vandalism or edit warring from (auto)confirmed accounts and for important templates as per WP:PP. Now, off you go to your next assignment. Mediran (t • c) 12:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please read WP:CSD.

In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?: When a page contains vandalism or copy-right violation or spam the article should be deleted. Also useless template, overcategorization, advertisement, neologisms,original theory etc. can be the cause of speedy deletation. At last the articles which are not suitable for wikipedia will be speedy deleted.

--Pratyya ^{(have a chat?)} 12:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons - they can be for any of the criteria) and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below.

Wow, your tagging was great. But at least you have one mistake with the correct tag in GRM Document Management. Mediran (t • c) 00:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Usernames

Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol theUser creation log to check for new users with inappropriate usernames. There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed:

Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, usernames that impersonate other people, or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing 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 particluar 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).

DJohnson

In my thinking this one is OK.

Y that's right, it doesn't violates of any disallowed usernames.
LMedicalCentre

It breaches Promotional usernames. Because it represents a company or organization.

Y yes its promotional but it can be misleading too if the user doesn't done any promotional edits.
Fuqudik

I think not OK. It is quite offensive.

Y that's right!
ColesStaff

Okay, But it is promotional. Because it represents a post at some company or organization.

Y yes its promotional but it can be misleading too if the user doesn't done any promotional edits.
~~~~

It never can be an Username. It is 4 tildes and It is the easy signature format in WP. This one must not be allowed as an Username.

Y that's right!
172.295.64.27

It's like an IP address. So it can't be an Username for a logged in user.

N Unfortunately, this is not a good username. This username is misleading because it gives an impression that this username is an anonymous user.
Bieberisgay

Looks Okay. But a bit offensive in my thinking.

that's right!

--Pratyya ^{(Happy New Year)} 06:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahh... your answers were great but I see some flaw in regards of which. But that's just OK. Off to your next task! ;) Mediran (t • c) 06:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Progress test

Congratulations, now have mastered the "basics" so we can move on. Please complete the following progress test, and I'll tell you what's next.

The following 2 scenarios each have 5 questions that are based on WP: VANDAL, WP:3RR, WP: REVERT, WP: BLOCK, WP: GAIV,WP: WARN, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, and WP:UN. Good Luck!

Scenario 1

You encounter an IP vandalising Justin Bieber by adding in statements that he is gay.

Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?

Ans: It would be considered vandalism.Because X is gay is an offensive sentence and it's blatant.

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?

Ans: It breaches the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing policy.

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

Ans: I believe {{welcomevandal}}. Or {{uw-vandalism1}}. If it had previous warning then higher warning would be appropriate.

The user has now added offensive words to the article 3 times. You have reverted three times already, can you be blocked for violating the three revert rule in this case?

Ans: I believe No and never. Because the 3 Revert Rule(3RR) does not apply against reverting obvious vandalism. See this

Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: {{IPvandal}} or Template:Vandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)?

Ans: As the vandalism was made by IP address so the {{IPvandal}} should be used in this case.

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

Ans: Making blatant vandalism and disruptive editing.

also violating 3RR.

--Pratyya ^{(Happy New Year)} 08:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Great answers! Fantastic!

Mediran (t • c) 11:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Scenario 2

You see a new account called "Hi999" that has added random letters to one article.

Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?

Ans: It'll be considered good faith edit. Because the user "Hi999" is new and don't know about editing wikipedia. And made mistake for this reason.

that's very pleasing. That reflects on how you're a good faith editor by considering other's edits as GF since they were new but that scenario depends if his edits were expressly disruptive. Mediran (t • c) 09:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Ans: If the talk page is empty then {{welcomlaws}} . But if that was not empty, messages were posted on that user talk then {{uw-test1}} will be appropriate.