User:Titodutta/CVU/Students/TheOriginalSoni

Starting our talk! --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Task 01 What is vandalism

 * Read these two articles Vandalism and Vandalism! --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * After drifting way too far after reading the first article (Vandals to Holy Roman Emperors to Circumcision to Ayrton Senna!!!), finally did it!!! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Titodutta/CVU/Students/Sohambanerjee1998 -- Tito ☸ Dutta 10:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Titodutta/CVU/Students/Sohambanerjee1998 -- Tito ☸ Dutta 10:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Task 02 AGF

 * Read this essay: Assume good faith --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Task 03 EW, 3RR, 1RR

 * Read these essays: WP:EW (specially the sections WP:3RR, WP:1RR. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Question - I was recently involved in a sort of edit warring which may have been falling under the 3RR (do not remember if it did). The problem there was that I had removed some totally unneccessary information from that page; and asked the warring IP to come to the talk page to discuss it. He reverted me without doing so; and so the reverting continued for some time. Now would this [Edit warring when the other user does not respond to talk page request] come under a possible infraction of the 3RR by me? Note that I could not have waited for another user to revert and not me, since the page was not a high ranking, so that option is closed.
 * So is it possible I could have been booked for 3RR? Would it be technically possible? (As opposed to would i really be booked I ask- Would it be possible to book me) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Which page? Yes, that might be called an edit warring. You could report to noticeboards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Syed Waheed Ashraf mainly, though I think we stayed under 3RR and there was some reveting on other pages too.. I dont see any reason to take it to the noticeboards either. But my question is whether 3RR still applied when you are dealing with an editor not ready to find another way out? Surely an exception on that matter might be prudent. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This edit was okay! --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know. My main concern was that an editor could face sanctions under 3RR even if the other editor does not respond to the requests. Should that not be an exemption to 3RR? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Task 04 Knowledge on Tools
Check these tools Counter-Vandalism Unit/Tools --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ (I hope checking the tools means just going through the list and seeing if there are any I would like to use)
 * Using only one of them is enough right? In which case STiki looks like the one I would like to use. Is there any way I can get the permission to use it? (I already asked on the talk page, btw) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need to use all those tools. I use Twinkle, Rollback (do you have permission of rollback?) only. I don not use STiki (If you are going to use it I can ask a STiki user to guide you (if you need guidance)). --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I use twinkle. And I have not yet got rollback permission yet. Need to rack up more anti-vandal edits for that.
 * That would be good, though the interface looks like I could use it without guidance too. STiki looks just the tool to help locate vandals, than just help countering them. SO I think I shall want to use it. [P.S. I shall need permission to use it too, since I have not got 1000+ article edits/rollback rights] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Task 05 Wikipedia Noticeboards
Check these noticeboards Noticeboards, you may need these every now and then. --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How many more to go? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you ready for test 1? --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think so
 * On second thought, I think it will be prudent for me to go and study before coming back to edit tomorrow TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I think it will be prudent for me to go and study before coming back to edit tomorrow TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ready. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Tests
There will be 3 tests. Details-

Test 01

 * Directions


 * Remember to sign after every answer.
 * Write in your own words as far as possible.
 * You can add images (from Commons) if necessary, but don't add more than one image per answer.
 * You have three active days to answer these questions. "Active days" means- three days from now when you'll edit Wikipedia articles, according to your contribution page (naturally if you don't edit in Wikipedia, those days will not be counted.)
 * When all answers are ready submit it by signing in below. Remember you can not edit your answers (even minor typos) after submitting answer sheet.

Question 01
Question: Define Vandalism in your words!

Answer: Any act of adversely modifying Wikipedia articles (or anything else in general, especially public works of art) with the deliberate intention of harm will be considered as Vandalism. To be considered as vandalism, it must necessary be made in bad faith. Any bad faith edits which ends up improving the article, interestingly, is not considered as vandalism. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember Wikipedia is not just made up of articles. Any edit which is a deliberate "attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia"Vandalism is vandalism whether it's to a template, user page, user talk page, a project page and so on. I would have liked to see a discussion of vandalism on pages outside the mainspace for the fifth mark. The rest of your answer is exactly what I was expecting. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to talk about all material on wikipedia as "Article", even if I imply both article and other pages. I dont think, however, that I took vandalism in that context. How would a vandal attack a picture? Do those attacks happen at all? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Uploading a new irrelevant image, changing file description "This is my photo LOLLLOL" etc, removing/replacing categories etc! --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding uploading a new irrelevant image, you can upload a new version of photos vandals sometimes (rarely) replace these images with offensive images (which can be very hard to find because it may only effect one article). Regarding categories they can change them to possibly offensive ones, eg categorising a person as gay. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Question 02
Question: What is the difference between good faith edit and vandalism?

Answer: While a good faith edit is done with the intention of improving the encyclopedia, a bad faith edit is exactly the opposite. It has just one intention - To deface the encyclopedia, a good faith edit is one which is made with a genuine intention to improve it, but might end up being just as detrimental (maybe even worse). Such an edit may be caused due to ignorance of rules, a mistake, or just people disagreeing. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, make sure you are familiar with WP:AGF. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Question 03
Question: Someone is continuously making racist attack against a user in user's talk page and edit summary of his edits, do you think it is vandalism? Why?

Answer: This one was tricky. While it does come very close to the borderline of being vandalism, it wont be. Since the attacks are limited to just being mean to the victim, it will be a case of PA; not Vandalism. But an edit like this would be considered as vandalism though. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst you are correct that these are blantant personal attacks, it is vandalism as well because it is attempting to "compromise the integrity of Wikipedia"Vandalism by making the environment impossible to work in for that editor. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs)
 * Still unconvinced on that. Mind pointing the actual policy there? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTVAND says "harassment is not vandalism" (NOTVAND), but it also mentions While some harassment is also vandalism... I think Callanec meant that by it is vandalism as well. --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically it depends on what the attacking editor is doing. If they are removing or adding other content or adding the attacks within other user's messages on the talk page (which is usually the case from my experience) then it would be vandalism. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Question 04
Question: Will you mark this edit as vandal act? Why?

Answer: No. While the edit did end up doing quite a bit of harm to the article, it was eventually caused by a genuine mistake on the editor's part. Which will be classified as under good faith. Had the editor added sentences like "Tito was here" instead of the removed portions, I would have taken it as real vandalism.

P.S. Hanlon's razor.

Plus, it is highly improbable that a vandal becomes a part of Counter-vandal squad, much less point out vandalism he himself did ;) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This was not editor's (my) mistake too. note carefully, the edit was made with WP:Twinkle, I did not go to edit mode, so it was Twinkle's glitch (it was reported and a known issue), not mine!--Tito Dutta (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct that in this case you would assume good faith (after checking the user's contributions and talk page to ensure that this isn't a repeating pattern), revert the edit and let the user know. Just on Tito's note, I've seen editors add "([{WP:TW|TW]])" to their edit summaries to try and hide what they did. Make sure if you have an edit you aren't sure on you check the user's history to make sure it isn't a pattern. Plus the use of an automated tool is not an excuse, so technically we should check every edit we make with an automated tool to ensure that no damage is done. The only reason this edit isn't vandalism is that is was not done in bad faith. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Point noted. Will keep that in mind. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Question 05
Question: Which tools you use to fight against vandalism?

Answer: I already have twinkle added, which makes adding warning templates on a vandal a lot more easier, as well as to quickly restore older versions, and add edit summaries at the same time. But STiki turned out to be a lot more effective with dealing with Vandals, as it specifically showed unedited suspected vandalism that needed to be seen. (Cluebot has taken most of the vandalism fighting job away). If and once I get rollback, I might also want to look and see what huggle does. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way I use Huggle as well as STiki (plus a few others) so I'm happy to help out with those tools if and when you need it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Will keep that in mind. Thanks
 * I have started using STiki, but I still do not know all the features. Mind breezing me through them? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * STiki is probably the bext place to learn how to use it. Also remember that you have option to customise edit summaries for every revert, and you can deselect the warning option (in the comments section on the bottom left) and leave the editor the most appropriate warning. I tend to use the STiki (metadata) queue on STiki to catch edits which haven't been caught already. You'd be surprised how much Cluebot does miss, primarily because it's restricted to a 1RR. If you need anything specific let me know and I'll see what I can do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Submit answer paper
All my answers are ready. And I'd like someone to evaluate my answers now. I know after submitting the answer sheet, I won't be able to edit the answers (even it is a minor typo). TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Task 06 and Test 02 (Practical)
From tomorrow 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 ✅, 3) Add "diff"s using "diff" template. 3) Make sure to add appropriate edit summaries, warn users, report to noticeboards etc (if necessary).

Submit answer paper
All my answers are ready. And I'd like someone to evaluate my answers now. I know after submitting the answer sheet, I won't be able to edit the answers (even it is a minor typo). TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Test 03 Presentation/Skill
In case you can not do these, then- Note: If you choose to create a powerpoint presentation, you don't have to use to use Google Docs. You don't need to create a presentation in your Google account or even sign in to your account, you can edit anonymously (your IP address will not be recorded too). If you are going to choose this, let me know, I'll give you presentation link. --Tito Dutta (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Select any one
 * Create a powerpoint presentation on vandalism (8–12) slides. (see note below)
 * Write a short essay on vandalism here: User:Titodutta/CVU/Students/TheOriginalSoni/Your Essay Title.
 * Keep on editing. After 5–10 days, I or someone will assess your reverts and contribution of this period.
 * I think i shall just continue with editing. Am quite filled with projects and presentations and essays to make already. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I take it that this is the last test right? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Final result
After assessing your recent contribution (which has been excellent so far), I have decided to  you in this exam! ! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)