User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/CharlieMehta

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/CharlieMehta.

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.

I have read Wikipedia:Vandalism and bookmarked it. Charlie (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Also read WP:DIFF. Charlie (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

CharlieMehta Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 02:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

I have enabled WP:Twinkle and read the corresponding text. Charlie (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

CharlieMehta Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 02:25, 7 November 2024 (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.

Answer: A good faith edit is a change made to content to improve accuracy, fix mistakes, or add value, even if imperfect—in short, it shows an effort with good intent. In contrast, a vandalism edit is done with the intent to harm, disrupt, or degrade content by deleting important information or adding false or inappropriate details sometimes rude remarks including profanity. To tell them apart, it's important to remember the difference between the two. We first need to check the content along with the editor's history and determine whether the content type aligns with helpful contributions or seems out of place. Charlie (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

. Note: unsourced content can be removed. Good faith edits such as incorrect WP:MOS, table format, spelling/grammar mistakes. An act of vandalism is where the editor knowingly adds or removes content which could be something like the addition of nonsense, or juvenile humour, vulgarities or blanking sourced content of sections or articles. Pls note that disruptive edits are not considered vandalism; however, continuing adding disruptive and unsourced content after final warnings can be reported and the editors will be blocked from editing. If you are not sure about an edit is vandalism act or not, then check the editing pattern of previous edits of the editor or IP, look at their history log, talk page for previous warnings (you might have to look at the talk page history in case it was blanked) you could also be wary of a new account which may be just unfamiliar with the system and so it it preferred to assume good faith. 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". Cassiopeia talk 02:25, 7 November 2024 (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.

Good faith

Answer:

(1) Good faith revert 1 at Samir Modi's page - rmv Family Dispute, WP:NOTSCANDAL

- Pls read WP:NOTSCANDAL. If the info is supported by independent, reliable source - such as in the article by economictimes then the info can stay in the article. WP:NOTSCANDAL is about "Scandalmongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping". The editor removed well-sourced content and it is considered a vandalism edit and not a good faith edit. Cassiopeia talk 02:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Reinstated the Family Dispute section under Controversies, as my previous removal of the text was deemed not to be a good-faith edit. Thank you very much for offering such valuable clarification. Charlie (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

(2) Good faith revert 2 at Dharampal Satyapal Group's page - Listings to be avoided... including, products and services WP:NOTPRICE.

. Unsourced content can be removed. Cassiopeia talk 02:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

(3) Good faith revert 3 at Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention - rmv "one of the world's leading academics in suicide research", testing detectpromo.js

. Cassiopeia talk 02:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

(4) Answer again: Good faith revert 4 at Rahul Gandhi's page - It was reverted by User:Begoon because the English was so poorly written that the meaning was completely unclear.

The info is sourced and if poor command of English occur the editor can copy edit the info. It is not about what other editor think but your assessment of the edit. Good faith edits are (example) those edits with incorrect table format, grammar mistakes, spelling mistakes, extra spaces, and etc. Pls find those edits.

Understood! Charlie (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

(5)

Answer again: Good faith revert 5 at Hyderabad Metro's page - removed "Our Special Correspondent" and "The Hindu Bureau" from the reference numbers 31, and 109 as it was giving a rendering error.

. Cassiopeia talk 06:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

(6)

Answer again: Good faith revert 6 at Delhi University's page - good faith revert by User:S0091 as section headings should be in sentence case, and Top Universities is not considered a reliable source.

. Cassiopeia talk 06:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism

Answer:

(1) Vandalism revert 1 at Gautam Adani's page - The page was edited to include the local slang term "gandu," but User:My Pants Metal quickly reverted the change.

. see the talk page of the editor - many warnings ince Nov 2022 and the IP editor was blocked. Cassiopeia talk 02:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

(2) Vandalism revert 2 at Association of Malayalam Movie Artists - The abbreviation of the association was changed, and its dissolution was incorrectly declared, but User:Kaeez06 intervened promptly and reverted the vandalised edit.

. Cassiopeia talk 02:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

(3) Vandalism revert 3 at Jagdeep Dhankhar's page - The page was edited to include the local slang term "sala kutta" and "kutta kamina haramjada", but User:Frost quickly reverted it.

. Cassiopeia talk 02:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

CharlieMehta Good day. Pls read the following before answer the questions.

Any questions regarding the assignment, please let me know here (at the bottom of the assignment "the communication section". For other questions not relating to the assignments, ping me on my talk page. or at User talk:Cassiopeia/CVUA/CharlieMehta.
You need to provide reasons, hist diffs - see diffs for instructions, of the/your edit and communication/warnings messages of the involved editor talk page for your answers.
(IMPORTANT) - Do not revert more than 3 times within 24 hours on the same article unless the edits are absolutely considered blatant vandalism for you will be blocked from editing. If you are not sure about the edits (whether it is a vandalism or not), pls do nothing and let other more experienced/counter-vandalism editors take action.
If you mistakenly give a warning to any editor wrongly, pls remove the warning and apologize. There is a assignment on communication with editors and we will discuss the topic on a later date.
Pls bookmark this page on your computer for easy searching
Pls note that the motto of CUVA is "Civility – Maturity – Responsibility." Welcome to CVUA. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 05:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for setting up the program! I will review the communication section and complete the assignments as needed, and then I will ping you when I am done, as instructed. Charlie (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

CharlieMehta Pls read the above meesagage from me and leave me a note here (communication section), if you have any question and when you have finished the assignment and want me to review. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 06:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, I have just completed the task you recently assigned to me and am ready for your review and feedback. Charlie (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

CharlieMehta, Reviewed and see comments. Good faith edits are (example) those edits with incorrect table format, grammar mistakes, spelling mistakes, extra spaces, and etc. Pls answer again on Q4 on good faith section. Once you have done, pls ping me. If you have any questions, pls let me know. Cassiopeia talk 02:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Just answered Q4. I am ready for your review and feedback. Charlie (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

CharlieMehta, Pls see comments on Q-4 and pls answer again A5 and Q6. When you have finished, pls let me know. Cassiopeia talk 06:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Just answered Q5 and Q6. I am ready for your review and feedback. Charlie (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

CharlieMehta, Reviewed. Pls let me know if you have any questions or you are ready to move on to the next assignment. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 06:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, Thank you very much for the review and for helping me at a foundational level. I am prepared to take on the next assignment. Charlie (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

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

(1) Why do we warn users?

Answer: We warn users to help them understand and follow Wikipedia's guidelines, so they can contribute positively to the community. Warnings are a way of saying, "Hey, this isn't the right way to do things here, and here’s why." By giving warnings of different levels, from gentle reminders to stronger cautions, we encourage users to correct their actions without immediately going to AIV or ANI for further investigation. This process helps maintain a collaborative environment while giving users a chance to learn and improve.

(2) When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

Answer: A 4im warning is used when a user does something very serious or disruptive on Wikipedia, even if it’s their first time. This type of warning is the strongest and is usually given when someone’s actions are so harmful that they could lead to an immediate block if repeated. Examples include severe vandalism, adding false information on purpose, or other actions such threatening users, use offensive language, evading blocks, etc., that seriously damage the quality of Wikipedia. The 4im warning tells the user that they are very close to being blocked and must stop immediately.

(3) Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?

Answer: When using Twinkle to warn a user on their talk page, it’s best to substitute the template, as this keeps the warning text unchanged even if the template itself is updated later. Twinkle makes this easy by automatically substituting the template for us, all we need to do is to pick the type and level of warning (from a mild level 1 to a strong level 4), and Twinkle takes care of the rest.

(4) What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalizes again?

Answer: The next step is to report the user to Wikipedia administrators for further action. To do this, go to the AIV noticeboard and submit a report with details of the user’s behavior, including links to the vandalism and previous warnings. However, if the issue is more complex, like an edit war, it may be better to report it on the ANI noticeboard instead.

(5) Please give examples and please do the substitution (using {{Tlsubst|''name of template''}}) of three different warnings with three different levels (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.

*Answer i:

Level 1 Warning for Paid Editing

Hello ABC. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to TEST PAGE, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:ABC. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=ABC|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message.

This Level 1 warning implies that ABC's edits suggest they may have an undisclosed financial interest in promoting a topic on Wikipedia, and they must disclose any paid affiliation before continuing to edit.

*Answer ii:

Level 2 warning for disruptive editing

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at TEST PAGE. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the Talk:TEST PAGE|article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.

This Level 2 warning indicates that the user’s edits on Wikipedia appear disruptive and unconstructive, advising them to stop and resolve any content disputes through discussion to avoid potential restrictions on their editing privileges.

*Answer iii:

Level 3 warning for removing speedy deletion notice

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself {{|#if:TEST PAGE|, as you did with :TEST PAGE}}. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This Level 3 warning indicates that the user should stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages they created, as continuing to do so may result in a block from editing Wikipedia.

CharlieMehta, See assignment 2 above. Cassiopeia talk 06:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I am on it and will keep you updated here as soon as it's complete. Charlie (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Completed the assignment. Apologies for the delay; I believe I initially misunderstood the task. I am ready for your review and feedback. Charlie (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

MolecularPilot Thank you for informing. Pls give me a few day and I will review it. Cassiopeia talk 03:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

hi, hi, just to inform you that I have no landline Internet today and it looks like my there are some issues/ damages occurred due to the 2 week rain here. ( I am writing this message from my mobile and it is very difficult to review the assignment via mobile). thank you for your patience and I will do the reviewing when my Internet is up. my apologies. Cassiopeia talk 20:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

No need to worry about the delay; your situation is completely understandable. I hope you are staying safe and well. Charlie (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Warning and reporting

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

(1) Why do we warn users?

Answer: Warnings on Wikipedia help teach users about the rules, stop harmful edits, keep track of issues for the future, and clear up misunderstandings to promote teamwork. They are meant to guide users and protect the quality of content, not to punish anyone.

(2) When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

Answer: A 4im warning is a final warning used for very serious problems, like major vandalism, spam, personal attacks, or hate speech. It’s given when the behavior is so bad that lower-level warnings aren’t needed, letting the user know they must stop immediately or face being blocked.

(3) Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?

Answer: Yes, one should substitute a template on a user talk page to reduce server load and keep the message unchanged even if the template is updated later. To do this, we must add subst: before the template name, like {{subst:subst:uw-vandalism1}} instead of {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}.

(4) What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalizes again?

Answer: If a user keeps vandalizing after getting a level 4 or 4im warning, we should report them to Wikipedia's Administrator Intervention against Vandalism (AIV) page. Also, we need to include proof, like links to their edits and details about past warnings.

(5) Please give examples and please do the substitution (using {{Tlsubst|''name of template''}}) of three different warnings with three different levels (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.

Answer i: {{subst:uw-disruptive1}} This is a level 1 warning, given to users who are causing problems, like making edits that disrupt a page or lower the quality of the content.

Answer ii: {{subst:uw-defamatory2}} This is a level 2 warning, given to users who add harmful or false content to articles or talk pages. It applies to content that damages someone's reputation or is not true. This warning is typically used when the content is serious, but not as bad as things like personal attacks or lies.

Answer iii: {{subst:uw-afd3}} This is a level 3 warning, given to users who have removed AfD templates for the third time.

VolatileAnomaly See assignment 2 above. Cassiopeia talk 07:07, 8 November 2024 (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 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

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

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

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

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)	diff	Your comment
4	Vandalism ( report to AIV)	diff	Your comment
5	WP:NPOV	diff	NPOV issue detected in the body of the article; Gstar Solar... "In the report, the company was ranked ahead of JA Solar, Trina Solar, and Yingli Solar." {{subst:uw-npov1}} warning given
6	WP:NPOV	diff 1, diff 2	Multiple NPOV issues detected in the body of the article; European Investment Bank. A WP:SPA ID account has been identified as being responsible for this. {{subst:uw-npov1}} warning given
7	WP:SPAM	diff	A promotional page for a company named IDream Education is being created by a very new editor. {{subst:uw-advert1}} warning given.
8	Talking on the article	diff	A new editor started adding intricate details as a commentary to the page of Aman Gupta. {{subst:uw-talkinarticle1\|Aman Gupta}} warning given.
9	Unsourced	diff	A new editor added information about a person's children names in the infobox of Eric Smidt which was not sourced. Welcomed the user {{subst:welcomeunsourced}}
10	Vandalism	diff	{{subst:uw-vandalism2}} Level 2 vandalism warning issued to this new editor for repeatedly vandalizing the infobox of the following article; 2011 Rainsville tornado. They have been warned earlier today by another editor.
11	Spam	diff	Replaced a spam link at Visa requirements for Kazakhstani citizens with government link. {{subst:uw-spam1}} warning issued to the editor.
12	Article Hijacking	diff	A very old SPA was found to be engaging in WP:AHIJACK. The article Rishabh Shah was originally about cricketer Rishabh Arjun Chandra Shah (born 11 September 1991). In 2021, it was redirected to the List of Durham UCCE & MCCU players. Then, in 2023, the redirection was removed, and the article was recreated as Rishabh Sanjay Shah (born 3 September 1991). {{subst:uw-hijacking}} warnings issued to the editor.
13	Your choice	diff	Your comment
14	Your choice	diff	Your comment
15	Your choice	diff	Your comment

CharlieMehta Good day. See assignment 3 and it is the most difficult assignment besides the final exam. Take your time to complete the assignment if needed. If Twinkle does not show the template in the drop down list, then manually subst it. Pls provide article name, hist diffs (including all reports), editor talk page where you place the warning message, reports hist diffs and any links that is applicable. Aslo, pls provide the reasons/justification/explanate of your answers. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 21:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)