User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Ken Tony

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/Ken Tony.

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.

Once you graduate I will copy this page into your userspace so you have a record of your training and a reference for the future.

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.: Yes, I've enable Twinkle in my preferences. I enable it two or three months back. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism edit

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, WP:VANDALISM 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.

Answer: The difference between AGF and vandalism can be differentiated in a user's behavior in an edit. A user assuming good faith tries to improve Wikipedia, whereas the vandals make unhelpful edits to Wikipedia. Beginners or inexperienced users are the ones who make edits assuming good faith more often, and majority of the vandals are also the beginners themselves (From my point of view). Examples of AGF edits are:- adding unsourced materials into an article, testing their edits on mainspace articles and incorrect usage of grammar etc. Vandalism can be identified when a user blanks or removes content (maintenance templates or body of the content) from an article. It can also be seen when a user tries to include offensive material to Wikipedia (Using them to express their hate towards a person or a sports club or a country etc.). We can tell them apart by looking in their contributions history.

. I like the fact that you would check the editor history log and we could also check their talk page to see their editing pattern if their edit is in question (could be good faith but dont know the Wikipedia guidelines). However, just to look at their contribution log/talk page/ and their edit history pattern would definitely help, 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". If you are not sure about their intention and they have very 1-2 edits in their contribution which hard to determine their intention, then we could just revert or correct the edit without placing a warning. If the subject/content is something you are not familiar, such as sport stats/sport result and you dont know where to find the source to check the info then leave the info for other editors who are familiar with the subject to action; this would happen particularly when editor update the score/sport result where the games/fights/matches have just finished in last few minutes, unless the info is out of normal results of that particular sport (example in soccer/football the editor changed/updated the score: 200 vs 400 (no games in soccer ever score 200 in the history) then that would considered a vandalism edit. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. You don't need to revert the example you find, and I am happy for you to use previous undos in your edit history if you wish.

Answer:

(1) First- Reason: Assumes good faith. The user changed to a name, which possessed the same meaning the older one had. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

(2) Second- Reason: Assumes good faith. User tried to make it more specific and understandable, but there is no overall change in it or there was a confusion between the first revision. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

(3) Third- Reason: Assumes good faith. No source to WP:VERIFY, but the user got sources to prove the inclusion and the only problem was that it was not cited. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

.WP:NPOV and unsourced. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Answer:

(1) First- Reason: A clear vandalism. It is clearly visible. User simply typed something blabbering, while the club has been playing in Azadi stadium since 1973. There was also a change in date without providing a reliable source. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

. The existing source does not indicate the year - but I found it here. If the existing source does not indicate the info and you know the content is correct, may sure you would able to find source to support it for verification. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

(2) Second- Reason: Removal of maintenance template. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

removing of maintenance template is not considered a vandalism edit. Please read WP:V again. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

(3) Third- Reason: Vandalism is clearly visible. User added offensive material to the BLP. No source and looks like the user used them to express their hate towards the person. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

(4) Fourth- Reason: Clearly visible. Removal of sources content and addition of unsourced material. Looks like the user is trying to work out their humour. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 20:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

(5) Fifth- Reason: Again, the vandalism is clearly visible. 100% intentional activity. User got blocked for 31 hours for the continuous vandalization. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 20:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony Good day.

(1) 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 Here.

(2) Do note, you need to provide the hist diff as per diffs guidelines and not you usual hist diff link.

(3) pls note (important) - do not revert more than 3 times within 24 hours on the same article unless the edits are absolutely considered blatant vandalisms for you will be blocked from editing.

(4) If you are not sure about the edits (whether it is a vandalism or not", pls do nothing and let other more experience/counter vandalism editors to take action.

(5) Pls provide explanations/reasons/support of your answer based on Wikipedia guidelines (pls provide link to the guidelines where is applicable) for all your answers in this program.

(6). pls note that the motto of CUVA is "Civility – Maturity – Responsibility." Welcome to CUVA.

Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Cassiopeia. I answered all the given questions. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony (1) Pls read item 5 on the communication section above and add in your reasons/explanation and guidelines where applicable to your answer for question 2 and 3. (2) pls let me know on the "Twinkle" section if you have enable Twinkle. Once you have done the above pls ping me. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I've Twinkle enabled. So, you're saying we should provide explanation and guidelines which was applicable in my action right? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony Pls indicate in the "Twinkle" section that you have enable the feature. You should provide explanations/reasons of your answers and if any Wikipedia guidelines is applicable where by your explanations/reasons are based on. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes Cassiopeia, will do like that. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony see comments above and pls provide addition 2 answers (Question 4 and 5 under vandalism section). Once you have done that, pls ping me. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Consider it done. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 10:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony Pls read my message above again and pls work on addition 2 questions as stated. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Yes. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Gave two extra examples for vandalism as you asked. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony Reviewed. Pls slow down and take your time to read the reading material, guidelines and instruction careful from here on. Kindly let me know if you have questions or you are ready to move on to next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 20:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

We can move on Cassiopeia. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 21:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Warning and reporting edit

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

Answer: We warn users to inform them about an issue that they've caused knowingly or unknowingly. It also serves as a way for the newbies and the other editors to study how to edit constructively constituting with the guidelines of Wikipedia. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

. 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. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Answer: When the vandalism exceeds its limit (repeated vandalism after several warnings) or when it becomes extreme, it is appropriate to use Level 4im warning. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

. 4im is only for widespread and particularly egregious vandalism and for use lower warning for less egregious vandalism. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Answer: Yes, we should always substitute a template when we place it on a talk page.(See this). Substitution is done by placing the subst: after the opening curly braces. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

. We should be used always so that the message on the users talk page does not change even if the template you used were to be altered at a later date. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Answer: If the user continues vandalism after 4im warning, we should report them in the WP:AIV. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Answer i: Used when someone has removed content from an article without a proper explanation.

Hello, I'm Ken Tony. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Answer ii: Usage of second warning when a user is not writing from a neutral point of view (eg:-addition of personal opinion).

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Answer iii: Final warning used when a user keep on adding unsourced material into an article.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony See assignment 2 above. For question 5 - use (example) {Tlsubst:uw-vandalism1}} subs three different templates (different warning and different level of warning}} see example below. Stay safe and best

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.

Please remember to provide explantion/reason for your answers with Wikipedia guidelines where is applicable. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony If you have finished with the assignment, pls let me know. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Cassiopeia for not pinging you. I forgot to let you know yesterday. Anyway, I completed it. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony See comments above. Pls add an additional colon " : " from the previous message thread for one space indentation to the right as this is the protocol for communication in talk page (I have added for you on your previous message). If you have any questions for this assignment, pls let me know or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: We can move on. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 08:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Tools edit

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 edit

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 edit

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 edit

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.

Huggle edit

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
Example 1	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	[1]	Already had up to level 4 warnings today on this article from other users, so straight to AIV My report to AIV Thankfully they were very rapidly blocked by the admin [2] Later, the admin hid the edits made by this editor - see User Contributions so my diff in 3rd column no longer works unfortunately - see also admins deletion log [3]
Example 2	WP:NPOV	[4]	Added their own opinion "...well known for causing trouble" about a protest group, this editor already had level 1 NPOV warning today, so I gave a level 2 {{subst:uw-npov2}}.
1	Test edit	diff	Your comment
2	Test edit	diff	Your comment
3	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	We Can't Stop: [5]	User earned a final warning at first sight from another user due to changing genres in an article. All these edits seems intentional as most of the edits made by this user is a vandal edit. Report to AIV: AIV Report \| Warning: Warning \| Block Log: Block Log \| User Contributions: Contributions (can check and clarify for extra evidence). Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
4	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	Seppo Pietinen: [6]	User assumed bad faith and was continuously vandalizing and adding speculative and unsourced information to several articles. The user already received level 2, level 3 and final level warning before my action. User was reported to AIV by myself and got blocked. AIV Report: AIV Report \| Warning: Warning \| Block Log: Block Log \| User Contributions: User Contributions. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
5	WP:NPOV	diff	Your comment
6	WP:MOS	diff	Your comment
7	WP:SPAM	diff	Your comment
8	Talking on the article	diff	Your comment
9	Unsourced	diff	Your comment
10	Your choice	diff	Your comment
11	Your choice	diff	Your comment
12	Your choice	diff	Your comment
13	Your choice	diff	Your comment
14	Your choice	diff	Your comment
15	Your choice	diff	Your comment

Ken Tony Good day. If Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. Kindly substitute "Your choice" with a brief description of your revert/edit such as "unsourced"/"vandalism" and etc. Pls provide article name, hist diffs, editor talk page where you place the warning message, reports hist diffs and any links that is applicable. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, for this assignment, should we report users in AIV? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony If editor make a vandalism edit after receiving the final warning, you can report the editor to WP:AIV. Pls state the reason of why you report the editor (such as vandalism-only account ; provide all vandalism hist diffs or etc.). Pls provide the hist diff of your AIV report. Basically, you need to provide the (1) the article name, (2) your hist diff (3) the reason why of your revert with Wikipedia guidelines if applicable, (4) hist diff of AIV report if applicable. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony Btw, assignment 3 is the hardest assignment besides the final exam. So take you time to find the edits as requested. Ping me if you need any help or need to clarify anything. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: As I'm required to provide two examples of AIV report, can I take reports made by others as I haven't reported any user in my Wikipedia career so far. Is there any problem in doing like that? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony All the above edits have be made by you including AIV report. If you are not sure on certain edits, leave it to other more experienced editors to action. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Its not clear. Did I made the AIV report? I don't think so. As far as I'm concerned, I haven't reported any user in the AIV. Anway, thanks for your reply. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 09:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony Pls read the message again. You need to be the one makes the AIV report and not using any other editors' AIV report. AIV report need to be new (from today onwards and not the past AIV reports). Assignment 1 you can use past edits or edit of other editor for the exercises, but for Assignment 3 all edits have to be made by you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Thank you for making it clear. I think this would take some more time than the previous assignments, but I'll inform you after I'm done with the assignment. Once again, thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 10:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony It has been almost 3 weeks I have yet to see you work on the assignment, kindly advise. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Oh, sorry about your inconvenience. On my first days, I was searching for the results of the assignment. Then I got busy on my works on Indian football. Still there's a lot to do. I'll answer it and inform you as soon as possible. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 09:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony Ok. Thanks for informing. When you have done, pls ping me. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Sure! Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 09:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)