User:Girth Summit/CVUA/Dey subrata

Hello Dey subrata, 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 in your answers, 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.

The CVUA curriculum

There are several sections of the training course. In some of them, will be asking you to do perform practical exercises; in others, I will ask you to read certain policies and guidelines, and then ask you some questions about their content. To be clear, 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 these questions: 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.

The start

Twinkle

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.

I have enabled it. But right now i'm going through pages like WP:VD, wp:TWINK, WP:TW/DOC, to understand fully about vandalism and about the tools properly. So it will take some time. I will let you know once I go through all these. @Dey subrata: Hi - it's been a while since we last communicated about this, I'm just wondering it you still want to proceed with the CVUA training? It's not a problem if you're still reading through the documentation - take all the time you need, I just wanted to check in with you. If you feel that you don't have time at the moment, just let me know. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Give me 2-3 days, i have some tight schedule, will back to you on sunday. I was able to read one article. But before we start with twinkle I have some questions, which I will put together after reading the remaining articles. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dey subrata: No problem at all - take all the time you need, I was just making sure you were still interested. Please do post any questions you have below, and I'll attempt to answer them before we proceed. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Questions on Vandalism

1. How to differentiate exactly between a vandalism and a misleading edit, or a misleading edit can be tagged as vandalism?

Reply- Have you read WP:Vandalism? That discusses the matter at length. Please confirm that you have read it, and tell me how you would answer the question, then I'll give you my thoughts. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this question is basically the same as the first question for you in the training course. Let's discuss this further down - I've just posted the first question. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes I have read. Why I used the "misleading edit" is because often I have seen various part in an article are well written which are sometimes look very legit, most in case of articles of some personalities, where even various citation are provided as media talk various things about them, but in reality are very misleading, which I feel are vandalism. By WP:VD here at the blanking,illegitimate section it has discussed about biased informations, and at hoaxing they discussed about hoax something which is false...but my concern is if something is wrong but shown as legit with proper citation than how to deal with that. I can't call it good faith, i can't call it false as ciatation is provided. But I know its a vandalism, that what exactly I was concerned, so I asked you what exactly is "misleading edit" should be for me? Dey subrata (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

2. If any new start article is tagged for speedy deletion, does it mean the editor can be quested to be blocked?

Reply- Only in certain specific cases. There are lots of reasons why a page might be tagged for speedy deletion - we will cover these as part of the course. The editor would only be blocked if they broke certain policies though, for example if the page was an attack page, or potentially for unambiguous advertising. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

3. How many chance should one give an editor if he continues such vandalism if unintentionally or may be if a new user?

Reply- To be clear - vandalism cannot be unintentional; however, unintentional problematic editing can also be disruptive. We have a series of escalating warnings for various different types of problematic editing, but the number of chances can range from zero (I've seen accounts blocked for a single problematic edit, if it is serious enough) to lots. It just depends - the first part of the course will cover this. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

4. Shall I or can I call for a Administrator Intervention even without warning?

Reply- That would be very unusual, but there have been times when I have given a 4im warning (the highest level of warning) and immediately contacted administrators - generally this is for serious unsourced allegations of sex crimes and the like. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

5. How to detect vandalsim by same user from different account or ips?

Reply- WP:SPI - however, when starting out in anti-vandalism work, it doesn't really matter whether the people we are reverting/reporting are the same or not - we'll just clear up the mess and report them. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Already I have idea on these but still to confirm from your side as you are experienced.

Other than these I have some specific vandalism that i ahve noticied and will consult with you how to deal with them. Good news is I have already used the Twinkle for rollbacks and rollback vandal, its really easy one than what I was doing earlier manually.

And in Twinkle preferences there are many things, which I failed to understand, its better you say what should be best preference I make there as I have just started using the Twinkle. Thank you

@Dey subrata: Hi, I noticed your comment that you have started using Twinkle, so I took a look at your contributions. I noticed that here and here you used Twinkle rollback, but didn't leave an edit summary. I wouldn't characterise either of these as vandalism - in cases like this, you should use the green or blue Twinkle features, and leave an edit summary explaining why you are reverting. Only rollback without an edit summary for very clear cases of vandalism. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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.

I think explaining good faith will be itself enough to know what is a vandalism , I am explaining what I have unsterstood from reading and throughout my experience about "assume goodfaith edits",

To me good faith is all about intensions, I have noticed that wikipedia has mostly explained goodfaith circling the newcomers mainly. But I think good faith occurs from both new comes and experienced also. To me good faith edits can be assumed as those which have no intensions of harming any project or articles, is not harming any policies or laws or do not distort the soul or the basic structure of an article.

What I understand, good faith edits mostly happen when a newcomer comes and try to edit an article, may be simply because of "Experimentation", or "try to include something important but end up messing which the user might not be having any intensions (which I think is easily percievable or distinguished from a disruptive or persistant vandalism). Secondly, when users want to change a project's soul purpose or changing structure of an article or providing certian section or removing, assumes "he/she is correct according to him/her" along with providing reason (but not with discussion with other editors) which again mostly done by newcomers but also can be done by experienced ones. Again in case of providing pictures or photographs, most people don't know about laws and regulation and thus unintensionally provide photgraphs which may violate copyright laws, so can be assumed a good faith edit. But I have seen other type of good faith edits also in case of data providing, as I mostly provide sport related datas, where I have seen that users change on datas without knwing correct or exact info and most probably sometimes because of general perception, which they think are correct, in that case I think can be assumed as good faith as they are not so intensional or vandalising in real sense.

Other than these I think anything which is wrongly done, misleading disruptive, abusive, rhetoric or with wrong intensions are "vandalsim".

You can add more to make me understand if I am wrong anywhere. Thank you Dey subrata (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

You are right - the difference is about the intention. If the user's intention is to improve the encyclopedia, then it is a good faith edit, even if they have completely messed up. Vandalism is something that is done with the intention of harming the project - it can be subtle, like adding information that you know to be incorrect, or it can be blatant, like adding insults or profanities into an article. The first task we have is attempting to determine the intention of the user, which is not always easy. If we are in any doubt, then we assume good faith.

So, if someone adds a long string of random characters, or deletes a chunk of text, it might be vandalism; on the other hand, it might be someone who doesn't know how to edit, experimenting with the interface. Since we can't know for sure, we assume good faith, and do not call it vandalism. We revert it, and we warn them about test editing, but we don't call it vandalism to begin with. If they keep doing it however, after repeated warnings, we might decide that it's not good faith after all, and deal with it accordingly.

I'll post the next step shortly. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. You don't need to revert the examples you find if you're not certain, and I am happy for you to use previous undos in your edit history if you wish. Present the diffs (see WP:DIFF if you're unsure of how to insert them) below.

@Dey subrata: Hi - you haven't updated this page for a couple of weeks now. If you're too busy to do work on this at the moment, we can put it on hold until you're ready to resume it more actively - that would allow me to free up a training slot for other editors who might want to do the course. If you want to proceed, please go ahead with the task above and place the diffs below for discussion. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 13:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, extremely sorry. I was busy and with that had a family outing,, could not give time. I will soon put the asked above. Dey subrata (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, no problem - just wanted to check you were still interested. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry to tell for now, I am unable to give much time in it, i even not getting time for normal wikipedia edit, I am afraid I am unable to do the above mention task for now, this week is very busy, I will like to continue from next month. But I am very much interested in it. So don't think otherwise, I am just not getting enough time. I hope you understand. Dey subrata (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. Please ping me when you want to proceed. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Inactive

Hi Dey subrata - I'm going to mark this page as inactive for now, as I would like to free up your slot so I can offer assistance to other users. If you would like to pick the course up again you are welcome to at any time - just drop me a note on my talk page and we can start up again where you left off. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can't afford to give time for it specially. But in near future if I find ample time, I will let you know. Thank you for your valuable time, atleast I had learned something from you, will always look to learn more in future. Thank you regards Dey subrata (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)