User:Titodutta/CVU/Students/Sohambanerjee1998

Read

Read the following articles—

I have read Wikipedia:Vandalism earlier and I have a fair knowledge about what vandalism means. Still I'll give them a read. $oHƎM❊আড্ডা 10:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I am back so can we start it again? --Sohambanerjee1998 15:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(Read/re-read the two essays mentioned above. --Tito☸Dutta 16:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Confirm that you have read these two essays. --Tito☸Dutta 17:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation - I have read these two articles. But I haven't read the links that go out from them. For example Wikipedia:NPOV disputeSohambanerjee1998 09:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:EW, WP:3RR, WP:1RR Tito☸Dutta 10:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I am reading them. Sohambanerjee1998 10:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Finished reading them. While were on the subject once I saw Pleasant and WittyWarrior move an article (OUATIMD) and reverting each other. I at once opened a discussion at the articles talk page to discuss the issue. Would that count as a 3RR as that was move-warring?

Links? --Tito☸Dutta 11:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai Dobaara!#Discussion regarding name of the article and female lead respectivley. and history. Sohambanerjee1998 13:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Blocking policy, Wikipedia:Banning policy. Tito☸Dutta 14:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll go through them soon once I am over with Boss DYK. Sohambanerjee1998 15:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Questions

How do you fight vandalism in Wikipedia? Do you use tool (eg. STiki, Huggle)?

I use Twinkle (last diff), Recent changes and watch-list patrolling and manually I eliminate Vandalism. I don't have rollback rights so can't use STiki and Huggle. For example the article, Grand Masti for the past few weeks each and every day I wake up I see an IP adding bogus links to the article and the severe problem is that there is no clean version, layers of Vandalism are present and I cannot revert to a clean version. In such situations Twinkle is pretty ineffective so I do them manually and check the references. Sohambanerjee1998 09:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
+ I look out for negative bytes that might refer to a section blanking.Sohambanerjee1998 09:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
On one instance I saw 7 different IP users all vandals vandalising. Now when I choose Compare selected revisions I can't rollback all of them because they are done by 7 different persons. (6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown), Twinkle only rollbacks the contents of that revision. In such cases I use manual removal. Sohambanerjee1998 09:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

What is good faith edit? What is bad faith edit?

To this I'll explain my understanding of good faith and bad faith and the difference between them one at a time (separately)

Good Faith- Good (postive) and faith (in this this intention). Therefore the literal meaning would be someone who edits Wikipedia with a positive intention, to enrich it with information and in the end wants that article to be the best. For example a person who's just learning english edits Wikipedia and makes some grammatical and sentence construction mistakes. He would write Akshay Kumar OUATIMD film mixed review from critics failed to collect good in the Box office with {{Bare Reputed URL}} instead of Akshay Kumar's film Once Upon ay Time in Mumbai Dobaara! got mixed to negative reviews from film critics at the same time was declared a Flop by Box-office India. Or a new person with who's not well-acquainted with the policies of Wikipedia or adds a dubious content to it.
Bad faith- What I explained above just the opposite is badfaith. For example an Vandal would write Akshay OUATIMD Bakwaas film. They so stupid they make shit film. This is FLOP FLOP FLOP. + I would avoid categorizing someone as bad-faith unless in situations like this. I would go to their talk page and discuss it with them. Sohambanerjee1998 09:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to use any Anti-vandalism tool/script (eg. STiki, Huggle) now? --Tito☸Dutta 11:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I would love to but that requires rollback rights which I can obtain from an Admin if you give the nod. Sohambanerjee1998 13:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Rollback Request

Should I appeal for it now? As a part of this training I also want to receive training regarding using STiki and Huggle. This two as you know require rollback rights. I appealed for it some months ago but did'n't get it since my edit count was less than 200. Now its 1560 so should I and the admin might contact you regarding the matter as you're my instructor. Best Sohambanerjee1998 08:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll suggest you to wait and finish this CVU study. --Tito☸Dutta 17:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine I'll wait till then but even after I finish I ~~might~~ will need some assistance regarding using those tools. Sohambanerjee1998 17:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Progress

I am an extremely curious student therefore I am asking these questions. -

How far have I progressed?
Whats next?
Will I have to take exams if yes then when?

Sohambanerjee1998 17:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

25%
Follows
Depends on other topics.
I can not understand what you mean by onfield experience. Tito☸Dutta 11:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

What does follows mean? Sohambanerjee1998 12:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

3 means one task has been give below. --Tito☸Dutta 06:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Tasks

From today make a list of 20 reverts below you'll make in Wikipedia. Remember 1) you can not choose reverts (you have to include every revert whether you consider those vandalism or not) 2) You can tag vandalism with "Yes". "No" or Y, N 3) Add "diff"s using "{{diff}}" template. 3) Make sure to add appropriate edit summaries, warn users, report to noticeboards etc (if necessary). See User:Titodutta/CVU/Students/TheOriginalSoni#Task_06_and_Test_02_.28Practical.29 for help. Tito☸Dutta 11:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

#	Diff	Tag vandalism	Your comment on the revert	Assessment
1	[1]	Y	According to Wikipedia External linking policies it falls under external linking vandalism but the editor is newly registered so gave him a polite reminder with these links attached.
2	[2]	N	The IP acts in good-faith adds content with reliable sources, therefore good-faith reversal of edit.	Y
3	[3]	Y	The User has a username Moizk which might be the short of Moizkhaliwala and therefore he adds links to his blog. Blogs are Unreliable sources and addition of blogs as sources is considered to be Blog spamming.
4	[4]	N	Not vandalism since the user has no history as well as the edit was just an edit without source.
5	[5]	N	Not vandalism, the IP added info (correct) without source but when disruptive editing is taken into consideration it can be called vandalism but should not be.
6	[6]	N	Not vandalism, the IP rearranged the casting order (bold edit).
7	[7]	N	Not vandalism, the IP added information not provided in the reference.
8	[8]	N	Not Vandalism, the IP added information without providing any reference but was acting in a Good-faith.
9	[9]	N	Not Vandalism, the IP removed information without discussion or preceding consensus.
10	[10]	Y	Vandalism since unexplained removal of content but IP had no previous history and new. Therefore just a general note.
11	[11]	N	IP acts in good faith but adds nonsensical content which are unsourced and unreferenced, therefore reverts. Has no previous history of Vandalism.
12	[12]	Y	The IP was clearly acting in Bad-faith but has no previous issues.
13	[13]	Y	The user has previous issue and external link spamming is a type of Vandalism. Therefore caution template.
14	[14]	N	The IP Added information in Good-faith but added content which are either unsourced or did'n't have reliable sources. The IP has one general note but that was for disruptive materials.
15	[15]	N	The IP added correct informations with good faith but is a bit naive. Has no previous issues. Directed him/her to Template:Infobox album.
16	[16]	N	The IP added bogus unreliable sources but is a clean one therefore general note given.
17	[17]	Y	Definitely a vandalism, the IP added WP:CITESPAM deliberately even after warning.
18	[18]	Y	The IP added a spam link in the external links section. The IP has no previous records therefore a general note.
19	[19]	Y	Violation of WP:SPAM, the IP has history also but in my opinion the IP was acting in Good-faith.
20	[20]	N

Before seeing this I made a few reverts should I include them also or should I wait and start the next day?Sohambanerjee1998 12:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverts made after 11:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Tito☸Dutta 21:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Those "Grand Masti" ELs are not clear vandalism, specially when the EL is relevant, might be an WP:ELNO. And if you get rollback, you may think to avoid rollback to revert such edit. --Tito☸Dutta 10:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I suggested you to use STiki, most probably you did not get my point then, it takes hardly 10–12 minutes to make 20 reverts *and that tool's AGF, Vandalism tags could be more helpful to assess here). Tito☸Dutta 10:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see. If you see over those external links they are pure and blatant rubbish. Plus recently I am off wikipedia for few days so its taking me a lot of time to make these reverts. I made the first 10 in one single day but the rest are taking me a lot of time. Just one remaining, after that I will submit it.Sohambanerjee1998 12:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)