Jump to content

User:Bmusician/Adoption/Hghyux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

== Hghyux (talk · contribs) ==

Completed. Bmusician 00:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

First Assignment: The Five Pillars

[edit]

What are the five pillars?

[edit]

The "five pillars" are the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates.

The Core Content Policies

[edit]

The core content policies on Wikipedia are neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiablity.

Editing from a neutral point of view (often abbreviated as "NPOV") is required on Wikipedia. Editing from a neutral point of view means representing unbiased and significant views that have been published by reliable sources, and giving due weight to all points of view. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable - so any information unsupported by a reliable source does not belong here. The personal experience or opinion of an editor also does not belong to Wikipedia.

Reliable sources

[edit]

Wikipedia uses the word source for three interchangeable ideas – a piece of work, the work's creator or the work's publisher. In general, you would expect a reliable source to be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. This doesn't mean that a source that is reliable on one topic is reliable on every topic, it must be regarded as authoritative in that topic – so whilst "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, I would not expect it to be authoritative on their full size equivalent.

A source that is self-published is in general not considered reliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are considered unreliable. One interesting sidepoint is on self-published sources talking about themselves. Obviously, a source talking about itself is going to be authoritative, but be careful that the source is not too self-serving – the article really should not be totally based on a direct source like that.

Mainstream news sources are generally considered reliable, but any single article should be assessed on a case by case basis. Some news organizations have been known to check their information on Wikipedia – so be careful not to get into a cyclic sourcing issue!

There's a lot more about what makes a source reliable here.

Discussion

[edit]

If there are any questions you have about this lesson, ask away: otherwise, answer the three basic questions below.

Questions

[edit]

Please note that short yes/no answers are not acceptable.

1. Your best friend says that the Diary of a Wimpy Kid film "is the stupidest and most boring movie ever". Can you add this to the article and why?

Answer: Absolutely not! That would violate WP:NPOV and would be considered an opinion. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

2. A blog titled "John Doe Fan Blog" states that John Doe will be going to Hong Kong on 7 July. No other source states that this is true. Can you add this to Wikipedia, and why?

Answer: I say no. Blogs have a reputation for being unreliable, and it could also contain the opinions of the blog author. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

3. Is the official Facebook page of KFC a reliable source?

Answer: It depends. Taking opinions from a customer who wrote on that page would not be allowed. Posts from KFC could be determined as a reliable source though. It's a bit of a grey area. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


Second Assignment: Wikiquette

[edit]
Completed. Bmusician 11:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What is wikiquette?

[edit]

Wikiquette basically means "wiki ettiquette", and is the etiquette of Wikipedia.

I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.

  • Assume good faith - This is fundamental. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. Every one. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
  • Sign your talk posts with four tildes (~~~~). The MediaWiki software will substitute the four tlides with your signature and timestamp, allowing the correct attribution to your comment.
  • Remember to reply to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. Talk pages should something like this. Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.
How's the pizza? --[[User:John]]
:It's great!! --[[User:Jane]]
::I made it myself! --[[User:John]]
Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Pizza]]. --[[User:Jane]]
:I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]]
  • Don't forget to assume good faith.
  • There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to.
  • Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification.
  • Did I mention that you should assume good faith?
  • Comment on the edits. NEVER COMMENT ON AN EDITOR. EVER.

Discussion

[edit]

Any questions? This assignment is pretty simple and so there are no additional questions that you have to answer. Please acknowledge that you are done reading the lesson so we can move on to the next assignment.  Question: What is the best way that you can handle a discussion if the other user in a dispute violates one or more of these rules? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you should try to resolve the issue without contravening WP:WIKIQUETTE yourself! You should attempt to kindly remind the user if their actions violate WP:WIKIQUETTE: if they still persist, you could open a thread at WP:WQA. Bmusician 00:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 01:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


[edit]
Completed. Bmusician 02:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This is probably the most important assignment I'll give, because this is the only one where failure to adhere exactly according to policy will result in an indefinite block from editing the encyclopedia – pay attention.

Glossary

[edit]

There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. Here is a glossary of the terms.

Term Explanation
Attribution The identification of work by an author
Copyright symbol © - used to show work is under copyright
Creative Commons Creative Commons is an organisation that provides licensing information aimed at achieving a mutual sharing and flexible approach to copyright.
Compilation A new work created as a combination of other works, which may be derivative works.
Derivative work A work which is derived from another work, e.g. a photograph of a painting
Disclaimer A statement which limits rights or obligations
FACT Federation Against Copyright Theft
Fair use Circumstances where copyright can be waived. These are strict and specific to the country.
Copyright infringement Use of work under copyright without permission
Intellectual property Creations of the mind, under which you do have rights.
License The terms under which the copyright owner allows his/her work to be used.
Non-commercial Copying for personal use - not for the purpose of buying or selling.
Public domain Works that either cannot be copyrighted or the copyright has expired

CC-BY-SA and GFDL

[edit]

On Wikipedia, you can only include text which has been released under CC-BY-SA and the GFDL. In fact, if you notice, every time when you edit, the following text is underneath the editing window:

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.

By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

So you are in effect contributing every time you edit. Now, let's think about that non-free content criteria - "No free equivalent" means that you will never be able to license text under it (except for quoting) - as you can re-write it in your own words to create an equivalent. You always, always, always have to write things in your own words or make it VERY clear that you are not.

[edit]

Copyright is a serious problem on a free encyclopedia. As I said before, any work that is submitted must be released under the CC-BY-SA License and the GFDL.

There are two types of images on Wikipedia, free images and non-free images.

Free images are those which can be freely used anywhere on Wikipedia. A free image may be either public domain, or released under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA. Free images can be used in any article where their presence would add value. As long as there is a consensus among the editors working on an article that the image is appropriate for the article, it's safe to say that it can remain in an article. Free images can even be modified and used elsewhere.

Non-free images, however, are subject to restrictions. Album covers and TV screenshots are two types of images that are typically non-free. They may belong to a person or organization who has not agreed to release them freely to the public, and there may be restrictions on how they are used. You have to meet ALL of the non free content criteria in order to use them.

What is fair use?

[edit]
Copyright symbol
Problems arise when people upload images that are not their own. Most images are under some form of copyright, even if it's not explicitly stated anywhere. This is usually the case with anything found on the internet. When these images are uploaded, Wikipedia must adhere to a very strict policy known as "fair use". What this basically is doing is giving us a reason to use an otherwise non-free image, on the basis that it is for educational purposes, using it has no measurable effect on the copyright holder's rights, and that we have no other alternative. The establishment of this reason is called the fair use rationale, part of a set of criteria that MUST accompany any fair use/copyright tag on Wikipedia. These criteria are:
  • A specific fair use tag (see link above) that describes what the image is.
  • The source of the image (this is usually a website, but could also be a book or magazine that you scanned the picture out of)
  • The image itself must be of low resolution. If it is high resolution, that version must be deleted and replaced with another (essentially, worse) version.
  • A fair use rationale explaining:
  • Where the image is to be used (This page MUST be in the main (article) namespace. Fair use images MUST NOT be used anywhere else)
  • That the image cannot be used to replace any marketing role or otherwise infringe upon the owner's commercial rights to the image
  • How the image is being used, in a way that fits within the fair use policy (i.e., identification purposes, etc.)
  • That there is no way the image can possibly be replaced with a free version
  • The image must have been previously published elsewhere

Only when an image meets all of these criteria may it be used. Fair use images must be used in at least one article (not "orphaned"), and articles using fair use images must use as few of them as possible. Any image that does not meet these criteria to the letter will be deleted. Any user that repeatedly uploads images not meeting these criteria to the letter will be blocked.

As a further note, I mentioned that fair use images must not be able to be replaced by a free alternative. What this basically means is, there is no way you, me, or anyone else could go out and take a picture of this same thing and release it under a free license. For example:

  • I could upload a picture of George W. Bush from the White House. Normally government works are automatically public domain, but let's say for the purpose of this discussion that the White House holds the copyright to that particular picture of the President. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a speech Bush is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) This is considered replaceable fair use and so would be deleted.
  • Person X could upload a picture of the Empire State Building from a marketing kit they distributed. This image would likely be copyrighted, and so they claim fair use. But I happen to have been to New York and have a picture of the ESB. I upload that instead and release it into the public domain. The first, copyrighted picture, is also replaceable.
  • For the article on the Monterey Bay Aquarium, I want to upload an image of their logo (visible in no great detail here). I go to their website and upload their version. This fair use is allowable, because no matter where or how they display their logo, it'll be under the same copyright. Since the simple art of scanning or taking a picture of a piece of work is not enough to justify my ownership of the rights to the image, there is no way to obtain a free version of the logo.

When people refer to Commons on Wikipedia, they're generally referring to Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free material. Images on Commons can be linked directly to Wikipedia, like that picture just to the right and above. Now, since Commons is a free repository, fair use is not permitted. It makes sense to upload free images to Commons, so that they can be used by all language encyclopedias.

For a full description of the policies and guidelines concerning fair use, read WP:FU.

Discussion

[edit]

If there are any questions you have about this lesson, ask away: otherwise, answer the questions below.

Questions

[edit]

Although copyright on Wikipedia may be a complex topic (lol), please keep in mind that simple yes/no answers are not acceptable.
1. Name at least two situations in which it is appropriate to upload an image to Commons.

Answer: The first way is to upload work in which you own, and release it into public domain, or with an appropriate licence. The second is if someone else has waived their copyrights to a photo (public domain) or put their photo under a licence that is acceptable on Wikipedia. (CC BY-SA) Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

2. Is Wikipedia really free? Why?

Answer: If free means if you have to pay for it, then of course! No ads, no membership fees, no money. Only a nonprofit that lives off of donations. If free refers to the image content, then also yes because all photos that are acceptable are either used under fair use, released into public domain or given an acceptable licence by the owner, or the same licenses have been put on a photo owned by someone else. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

3. Can you upload a press photo of the pianist Lang Lang under a claim of fair use?

Answer: No because you are capable of taking your own photo of him. Thus, fair use would not be allowed. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

4. You find an article about a company that is a direct copy of the About Us page on their website. What would you do?

Answer: Tag it with CSD G12. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

5. Go to any Wikipedia article and find an image that is used under "fair use". Link to the image in your answer.

Answer: File:BelikinLabel.jpg Here you go. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Fourth Assignment: Deletion Policies and Process

[edit]
Completed. Click [show] to see my response to your answer at Q4. Bmusician 07:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of an article and basically any page occurs when the page would take a fundamental re-write to conform with Wikipedia's accepted criteria for content of the encyclopedia. There are many reasons why a page would be deleted.

Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD)

[edit]

The fastest way a page can be deleted is through speedy deletion. If a page meets at least one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, it must be tagged for speedy deletion, the creator of the page should be notified, and the page be deleted immediately.

Here is a list of all general criteria and important article criteria. For a complete list please view WP:CSD.

General criteria
[edit]

Here is a list of general criteria. The criteria apply to all pages (meaning articles, talk pages, user pages, and even Wikipedia namespace pages.)

  • General criterion 1 (G1) – Patent Nonsense. Pages that meet this criterion consist entirely of incoherent text or gibberish and lack any meaningful content or history. This criterion does not apply to pages that are not in English, vandalism/hoaxes, poor writing, poorly translated, or basically anything that is coherent. It also doesn't apply to pages in the sandbox or in the user namespace. Tag these with {{db-nonsense}}
  • G2 – Test Pages. Pages meant entirely to test Wikipedia editing. Like G1, this criterion does not apply to pages in the sandbox or in the user namespace. Tag these with {{db-test}}
  • G3 – Vandalism and Hoaxes. Pages that are pure vandalism, such as blatant and obvious misinformation (hoaxes) and redirects created from page-move vandalism cleanup. Tag these with either {{db-vandalism}} or {{db-hoax}}
  • G4 – Recreation of Pages Deleted via a XfD. Pages that are sufficiently identical to another that was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. This criterion does not apply to pages that are not identical at all to the deleted page, pages in which the deletion was overturned as a result of a deletion review, or if the page was deleted through proposed deletion (PROD) or CSD. Tag these with {{db-repost}}
  • G5 – Banned Users. A page created by a block- or ban- evading sockpuppet in violation of the master's block or ban with no substantial edits by others. This criterion does not apply to pages that have substantial edits by others. This criterion should also not be applied to transcluded templates. Tag these with {{db-banned|banned user name}}
  • G6 – Housekeeping. A page that needs to be deleted to perform non-controversial housekeeping tasks. Tag these with one of these templates: {{db-g6|rationale=reason}}, {{db-move|page to be moved|reason}}, {{db-copypaste|page to be moved}}, {{db-xfd|votepage=link to closed deletion discussion}}, {{db-maintenance}}, {{db-house}}, {{db-disambig}}
  • G7 – Author Request. The author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith by either tagging the page or completely blanking it. Tag with {{db-author}}
  • G8 – Dependent on Non-Existent Page. A page that is dependent on a non-existent or deleted page, such as a talk page with no corresponding subject page, subpages with no parent page, an image page with no image, or a redirect to a bad target, such as nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles. Tag with one of these: {{db-g8}}, {{db-talk}}, {{db-subpage}}, {{db-imagepage}}, {{db-redirnone}}, {{db-templatecat}}
  • G10 – Attack Pages. A page that threatens or disparages its subject or some other entity, and serves no other valid purpose. Attack pages include libel, legal threats, and a biography of a living person that is completely negative in tone and unsourced. Attack pages should be deleted when there's no neutral version in the history to revert to. Tag attack pages with {{db-attack}} and tag negative unsourced BLP's with {{db-negublp}}
  • G11 – Spam/advertising-only pages. A page that serves no other purpose but to promote its subject or some other entity. Spam pages should be deleted if it would take a fundamental re-write in order to be encyclopedic. This criterion does not apply if the page describes its subject from a neutral point of view. Tag these with {{db-spam}}
  • G12 – Copyright Violations. Pages that are a direct copy of copyrighted material with no assertion of the content being in the public domain or used under a claim of fair us. This criterion does not apply to pages that have non-infringing content in the history; consider posting to WP:CP if that is the case. Tag these with {{db-copyvio|url=source URL}}
Articles
[edit]

I only have listed the most important article criteria here. These criteria apply only to articles. This means Articles for Creation submissions do not count.

  • Article Criterion 1 (A1) – No Context. A very short article that does not feature enough context to identify the subject of the article. It is advised that new page patrollers wait at least ten minutes before tagging this criterion. Although its purpose is to avoid WP:BITE, the page creator may not have finished working on the article in the first revision. Tag these with {{db-nocontext}}
  • A3 – No Content. Any article other than a disambiguation page or redirect that features only external links, category tags or "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, an attempt to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help desk, chat-like comments, or a gallery of images. An article that has context but is very short does not apply under this criterion. Be very careful when tagging this criterion on newly created articles. Tag these with {{db-nocontent}}
  • A7 – No Indication of Importance. A page about an individual, organization (excluding educational institutions), musician or band, club, or web content that does not state why it is significant. The criterion does not apply to albums (A9), books, or software. Do not confuse this criterion with "not notable". The criterion does not apply if the article makes a credible assertion of notability, even if the assertion is not supported by a reliable source. If the notability is unclear, you can either propose the article for deletion or list it at articles for deletion. Tag with either {{db-person}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-club}}, {{db-inc}}, {{db-web}}, or {{db-animal}}
  • A9 – No Indication of Importance (Albums). An article about a musical recording or album that does not indicate why it is significant, and where the artist's article does not exist or has been deleted. Both conditions must be true to tag under this criterion, so if the artist's article exists, this criterion does not apply. Tag with {{db-album}}
  • A10 – Duplicate of Existing Topic. A recently created article with no page history that duplicates an existing topic, and that does not improve information within any existing articles on the subject, and when the page title is not a plausible redirect to another page. Tag with {{db-same|other page title}}

Proposed deletion (PROD)

[edit]

If a page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion but you feel that it can be deleted without any controversy, you can propose it for deletion via WP:PROD. To propose an article for deletion, tag the article with {{subst:prod|reason}} and then notify the page creator.

There is only one disadvantage to proposed deletion. Anyone, even the page creator, can prevent the proposed deletion by removing the template. If you still believe the article should be deleted if that happens, open an Articles for Deletion debate, which I'll explain about below.

If the tag is not removed after seven days, the proposed deletion will expire and so the page will be deleted by an administrator.

PROD of unsourced BLP's
[edit]

A biography of a living person that does not feature any references needs to be proposed for deletion. Do this by tagging the article with {{subst:blpprod}}. Unlike regular PROD the tag can only be removed after there is at least one reference to a reliable source.

The page is deleted if the tag is not removed after ten days, or if there are still no references.

Deletion discussions (XfD)

[edit]
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Deletion discussions (XfD, stands for Anything for Deletion) allows Wikipedians to discuss whether an article should be deleted or not. The result of the discussion depends on consensus. Only policy based arguments are considered while the discussion is closed. Deletion discussions are not a vote. Deletion discussions last for seven days, although the duration can be extended if the consensus is not clear after a week; likewise, they can be closed early if a consensus would be clear.

The template on the right shows all types of XfD's; the most common is AfD.

Discussion

[edit]

Either ask away or answer the questions below.

Questions

[edit]

1. There is a new page created that says "John Doe is a renowned poet. He lives in Florida." Would the page be applicable for speedy deletion? Why or why not.

Answer: Not within the first few minutes. That would be biting. If a good 10 minutes or more has passed after creation with no improvements then yes it could be speedied. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Follow Up Question: The page features enough context to identify the subject of the article. Would it still be applicable for speedy deletion?
A: No. As long as it has references, and complies with the rest of the rules (NPOV)(COI)(NOTABILITY) etc. It should be completely fine. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 13:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

2. A page was nominated for deletion. After a week of a discussion, there were one hundred users that !voted for "keep". All of the !votes stated that "The nominator of the page is an idiot!" There were also ten users who !voted for "delete", saying that "this topic fails WP:GNG and lacks coverage in reliable third party sources". What do you think the result of the discussion would be? Why?

Answer: I bet the closer would delete it because more users voting delete provided valid reasons than those that voted keep. Though having more than 100 users having a grudge against you is quite scary... Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

3. A newly created page appears to attack John Doe. "John Doe is a big jerk who stomps around all over the place and likes to set people on fire! He has AIDS." What would you do?

Answer: Tag CSD G10 for an attack page. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

4. A newly created article appears to be about a notable living person but has no references. What would you do?

Answer: I would either add my own references to it if I could or add cleanup tags to the article. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Follow Up Question: If you couldn't find any references for that living person, what should you do instead of adding cleanup tags to it?
A: Ask the page creator to add reliable references that they know of. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 13:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
...or you could tag for a WP:BLPPROD. Bmusician 07:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

5. A user tags an article for speedy deletion under A1 nearly ten seconds after the page was created. Was their action right, and why?

Answer: Nope that is biting. You need to wait a bit before tagging A1. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool tools

[edit]

Tagging CSD and PROD are much easier with Twinkle. Go to WP:TW for instructions on how to install and use it!

 Already done Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Fifth Assignment: Dispute resolution

[edit]
Completed. Bmusician 14:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, and no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very likely to end up in a dispute. This becomes more and more likely as you get into more contentious areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more evocative the subject - the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious.

Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.

I'm going to go through the different methods of dispute resolution there are on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking.

Simple Resolution

[edit]

No. I'm not expecting you to back down. You obviously believe what you are saying, and there is nothing wrong with that. What you can do though is attempt to resolve the dispute. How??? I hear you ask.

Firstly assume good faith, remember the person you are in a dispute with is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are not trying to deliberately damage the encyclopedia. Try to see things from their point of view and see if you can both come to a compromise.

Keep calm. There's no urgency to the change you are trying to put in or take out, it will wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to fight by editwarring to keep your preferred version there is a large chance that you will get nowhere and face a block. So, instead follow Bold, Revert, Discuss - one editor makes a Bold edit, which they feel improves the encyclopedia. A second editor Rerverts the edit as they disagree. The two (or more) editors discuss the matter on the talk page until they come to an agreement or proceed along Wikipedia's dispute resolution process.

When it comes to the discussion, I want you to try and stay in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right. You've heard the phrase "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" right? Well, this pyramid explains the different forms of disagreement. Attacks on the character of an editor is never going to help anything. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editor's argument and respond to that.

If you think about what you are saying and how the editor is likely to respond you realise that you have a choice. Your comment will generally go one of two ways, 1): it will address the editors argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor will be able to understand, and 2): It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama.

Accusations of attacks, bad faith, ownership, vandalism or any number of negative suggestions are going to fall into (2). If there are issues with one of these problems, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, walk away and have a cup of tea. Play a game of "racketball". Whatever you do to calm down and just not be on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia dispute resolution process

[edit]

If the simple techniques don't work (and you'd be amazed how often they do, if you try them), Wikipedia does have some methods of dispute resolution

Assistance
[edit]

If you want someone to talk to but not necessarily step in, there is an WP:Editor Assistance notice board. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the situation.

Third opinion
[edit]

You can get someone uninvolved to step in and give an opinion on a content dispute. WP:3O has instructions on how to request a third editor to come in and discuss the situation. Another option to get a third opinion is to go to the project noticeboard associated with the article to ask for an opinion (the talk page lists which projects are associated with the article). Finally, you could leave a message at a relevant noticeboard - WP:SEEKHELP

Mediation
[edit]

If the issue won't go away, even after a couple of people have weighed in, you can try Mediation. There are two processes here. Informal (WP:MEDCAB) and formal (WP:RfM). There's also WP:DRN which is fairly informal but focuses more on content disputes. The editors involved with all of these processes specialise in resolving disputes.

Request for Comment
[edit]

You can use WP:RfC to draw community discussion to the page. You are likely to get a larger section of the community here than a 3O request. There is also an option to Request comment on a user. This is rarely necessary and should not be taken lightly. Only after almost every other route of dispute resolution has been taken should this happen - and it requires at least two editors having the same problem with one editor to be certified.

Arbitration
[edit]

I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected its most trusted willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated cases. Have a read of WP:ARBCOM if you like, but try not to end up there.

Reports

[edit]

If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards where you can get some help.

    Remember: you could be wrong!

    [edit]

    You could be acting against consensus! But as long as you are open to the possibility and have been sticking the top 3 sections of the pyramid, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realise you are flogging a dead horse.

    Discussion

    [edit]

    If you have any questions, ask them now! Or answer the questions below.

    Questions

    [edit]

    1: What does bold, revert, discuss mean to you?

    A: To me, bold means to edit in a, well, bold way, and to be open in discussing your views. (While being civil)

    Revert means to accept a revert made by another editor and be a bit more creative in what you add to the article. Discuss means to not edit war, but rather discuss the issue. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC) 2: Assuming that person A puts in an edit, person B reverts, person A reverts... and so on, but both stop short of WP:3RR (the bright line)... who wins the edit war? Trick question alert!

    A: Nobody. Both users lose for acting inappropriately. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    3: What is vandalism?

    A: A bad faith edit designed to disrupt the project. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?

    A: Editor assistance is like the help desk for editors wanting help with a bit of an issue. A third opinion is a third opinion by an editor not involved. A RFC is a discussion regarding an editor. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    Sixth Assignment: Vandalism

    [edit]
    Completed. Bmusician 12:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

    What we're going to do now is get you started with some basic vandalism patrols. This is by no means something you will be obligated to do as an editor, however it is something you should know how to do due to the high risk of vandalism on Wikipedia. Should you ever become an administrator, you will likely be expected to deal with vandalism in some respect.

    To start off, let's get some background. Wikipedia is, as you know, a wiki, meaning anyone can edit virtually any page. This is both a blessing and a curse, however, as while it does allow a wide range of information to be added and shared, it also allows people with less than benevolent intentions to come in and mess around with stuff. It requires a fair amount of work during every hour of every day to ensure that this vandalism does not run rampant and destroy the project. Fortunately, with a near-endless supply of volunteers across the world, this doesn't really cause a problem. The addition of various tools help aid our cause and make the "reversion", or removal, of vandalism happen within minutes (sometimes seconds).

    What is vandalism?

    [edit]

    What we define vandalism as is "an edit which is delibrately attempting to harm the encyclopedia" to an article or other page. Most commonly, these are pretty blatant - replacing a whole page or section with curse words, simply removing entire sections, and so forth. Occasionally, it's less obvious, like changing key words in a section to completely alter the meaning. Basically, anything that can't be helpful at all to the article should be considered vandalism, however you should always remember to assume good faith for questionable cases.

    The most commonly used, and arguably the most critical tool in this respect, is Special:RecentChanges. Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across the project within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks:

    So that you can know all the terminology (which in some cases will be used across the site), I'm going to explain what all of this means. Feel free to skip this if you've already clicked the links.

    1. A "diff" is the difference between two revisions. Wikipedia has a special feature that allows you to compare revisions to see exactly what was changed. This is particularly useful when on vandal patrol, as this is the best thing available to tell you if the edit was or was not vandalism. Clicking on the link above will only take you to the help page on diffs, unfortunately, however an actual diff link will bring you to a screen that looks like this one, an actual diff of another article. Content removed appears in red text in a yellow box on the left; content added appears in red text in a green box on the right.
    2. The "hist" link will bring you to the page's history. You can click on the "hist" link above to get to the help page for this feature. A page's history lists all edits ever made to a page, something which is required under the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia's licensing.
    3. The next link is the article that the edit was made to.
    4. The time stamp will indicate when the edit was made. The time will appear in your time zone, as you have it defined in your Special:Preferences. Note that this is different from signature timestamps, which are always in UTC/GMT time.
    5. The green or red number after the timestamp will tell you how much was added or removed to the article in the edit. A green "+" number shows the number of bytes added to the article - a red "-" number indicates the number removed. In general, the number of bytes is equal to the number of characters, however this is not always the case: Certain special characters can contain more than one byte, and templates can completely mess this number up. Templates will be covered in another lesson later on, however you will be using some in your patrols later. This number will be in bold if a very large number of characters were removed, which is usually a good indicator of vandalism.
    6. The next part is the name of the user who made the edit, which will link to their user page. In this case, an IP address made the edit, so the link will instead go to their contributions. Since most vandalism comes from these anonymous editors, this serves as another convenience to those on patrol. The user name is followed by a link to their talk page.
    7. The last part of a RC report is the edit summary. When editing a section of an article, the title of that section will automatically be included in the edit summary, as you see above. Other special edit summaries include "Replaced page with..." and "Blanked the page". In general, these last two are dead giveaways for vandalism edits, however you will occasionally see an editor blank his own user or user talk page, so be careful about that.

    Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to and find some vandalism edits. I don't want you to remove the edit yourself just yet - we'll get to this shortly and chances are, another editor or bot will beat you to it. So before you go on, go to Special:RecentChanges and find three vandalism edits. So that I can check your work and we can discuss things, I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below. (This is most easily done by copying the URL from your address bar while you're viewing the diff.)

    IMPORTANT WARNING

    [edit]

    IMPORTANT WARNING: Due to the very nature of vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible you will encounter something that will offend you. I take this time to point out Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, which basically says that you can find just about anything on here and it's not WP's fault. While you may find something offensive in your searches and subsequent vandal patrols, it is best to simply brush it off and not take it to heart. Later on, when you are actually reverting vandalism, it is possible that your own user pages will be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore and simply remove it. I do not tell these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible, although exceedingly rare. In many cases, these attempts to attack you are in fact somewhat amusing. If it occurs, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you actually have a life. Please add your signature here (~~~~) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning:

    Task
    [edit]

    Now that that's over with, go do your task. Have fun! (By the way, please ignore new pages, indicated by a bold "N" on the log entry.)

    • Diff 1: diff Why you think this is vandalism: Random gibberish.
    • Diff 2: diff Why you think this is vandalism: Adding just the letter "u" to an article.
    • Diff 3: diff Why you think this is vandalism: Random attack trolling.

    Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 15:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    How to Revert

    [edit]

    Well, if you're using anything but Internet Explorer 8 and below, I suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. saving your preferences and then holding shift while pressing the refresh button. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more can be found at WP:TWINKLE

    Vandalism and warnings

    [edit]

    You occasionally get the repeat vandal. The vandal who is here, not because he is bored and has nothing better to do, but because he has a singular purpose of wreaking as much havoc as he can before he gets blocked. These vandals go in and remove entire sections of text, or replace entire pages with gibberish repeatedly. Even after you've given them a warning, they ignore it and continue. It is for these vandals we have multiple levels of warnings. In general, you will escalate up those levels from 1 to 4 as the vandalism continues. If it's nothing clearly malicious (see below), you should always assume that it was a careless mistake (in short, assume good faith, one of Wikipedia's foundation principles), and just let them know that you fixed it. As it continues, it becomes more and more obvious that they intend to cause trouble, so the warnings get more and more stern. Occasionally, you'll get the vandal, who despite all logical reasoning, continues to vandalize after that final warning. When this happens, we have no choice left but to block them. Since we're not administrators, we lack this ability, so we must report them to those with that power at Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page provides complete instructions on how to file a proper report. If you are using Twinkle, you can report a user to this page by clicking the "arv" tab at the top of any of their user pages. Usually, an administrator will take action within minutes, but until that happens, you need to continue watching the vandal's contributions and reverting any further vandalism. The Three-Revert Rule does not apply when dealing with obvious vandals. I should also note here that many vandals will remove warning template from their talk page. While this may appear as vandalism, and for a time was treated as such, it is not necessary to re-add these warnings, and no warning should be issued for the blanking of the talk page. While these templates do serve as an easily accessible record for other vandal fighters, their main purpose is to alert the vandal to the consequences of their actions. Removing the templates is considered a way to acknowledge that they have been read.

    Then you get the belligerent vandal. This is very similar to the last kind, although they actually take the time to read the warnings (or are able to) and take offense. They go by the logic that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so who are you to tell them that they can't edit in this particular way? To make this rather annoying point, they will leave an offensive message on your talk page, or more often simply add some sort of vandalism to your main user page, which you generally won't notice for several more minutes, or days, if someone else reverts it first.

    When this happens, you just have to take it in stride, and remember that you are far more intelligent than them because you actually stop to read information instead of blanking it away, and thus the human race still has some hope for salvation. Just revert it, and slap them a {{uw-npa}} warning of whatever severity you deem necessary. The last version got a {{uw-npa4im}} warning, an "only warning" for the most severe offenses, and I still reported him straight off anyway.

    The final version is the malicious vandal. These are hardest to notice, because their edits aren't immediately recognizable. They will seem to be improving the article at first glance, when really they're replacing true information with false, often libelous parodies. Others replace valid links with shock sites, or add hidden comments with offensive information. This last version doesn't actually appear in the article, but is there waiting when someone comes to edit it. A similar type of vandal, the "on wheels" vandal, is here for the sole purpose of destroying the encyclopedia. The namesake, User:Willy on Wheels, replaced dozens of pages with the text "{{BASEPAGENAME}} has been vandalized by User:Willy on Wheels!" The BASEPAGENAME variable is a magic word that displays the name of the page. After his blocking, Willy continued to create hundreds of sockpuppets for the same purpose. This sort of vandal is clearly here to vandalize, as such actions are not accidental. With them, you can safely assume bad faith right from the start and slam them with a more severe warning. No, you don't have to escalate in all cases - if there is no doubt that the edit was made with bad intentions, you may start with a higher level than normal. The "4im" level is designed specifically for cases of severe vandalism, and is an only warning to cease and desist.

    Keep an eye out for all of these vandals, and keep that information in mind when stopping them. There is a full customized range of warning templates to be found at WP:UTM - use the most specific one possible, so that the vandal, if he did make a simple mistake, has the links at hand to learn from his mistake and improve. Any questions, please put them on the adoption talk page.

    Discussion

    [edit]

    Any questions? Or would you like to answer the questions below?

    Questions

    [edit]

    1. What is vandalism?

    A: A bad faith edit that is disruptive to the encyclopedia. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 15:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    2. We currently have four levels of warnings, have a look at them if you like 1, 2, 3, 4 - along with an only warning. Do you think we need 4 levels?

    A: Personally I think 3 warnings is a better method (3 strikes!), but 4 is also fine. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 15:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    3. Does an admin need all 4 levels to block? How many do you think they need? How many should you have gone through before going to AIV?

    A: Technically no. An admin does not need 4 warnings to block. Though such a block could be deemed as controversial. You should only block a user with less warnings if the disruption they are causing needs to be stopped. A user should go to AIV until a lv4 or only warning has been placed on their page and they continue to vandalize. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 15:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    4. When do you think you might use the "only" warning?

    A: I would do it for really bad vandalism like shock porn or major trolling, and also if the user just came off a block and is vandalizing again. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 15:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    5. Is a copyright violation vandalism?

    A: No it's a copyvio. Most of the time copyvios are good faith edits. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 15:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    6. The vast majority of vandalism comes from IP editors... but the majority of good edits are also made by IP editors. Should Wikipedia require registration?

    A: No. That may discourage someone who has decent info to add to the project. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 15:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    7. Have you finished the task above, in the "IMPORTANT WARNING" section?

    A:  Done Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 15:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    Final Assignment: Working on Wikipedia

    [edit]

    Welcome to your final assignment! Great job for getting this far. This assignment is designed to teach you about the different areas you can work. It's a big wide encyclopedia out there.

    Building

    [edit]

    The first option is to build new articles. You know an awful lot about how Wikipedia works now, what's notable and what's not, and what are reliable sources and what are not. How about you try and write an article? Something new, something different. You may have already done this. If you can write 1500 characters about a subject, you can submit it for Did you know (DYK). Did you know is a great way to ensure your new articles are up to scratch (they need to be less than 5 days old in the mainspace, well sourced and have a catchy "hook") and the hook should appear on the front page in the Did you know section! You can also apply for a DYK if you expand the characters in an article by 5x. That can be quite tough, but it is possible.

    Join a WikiProject

    [edit]

    Have a look at your favorite articles. On the talk page, you'll often find that they have an associated WikiProject. The project is always looking for new members and will enjoy your help! They often have to-do lists and you could help out. :)

    Deleting

    [edit]

    Why not mozy over to WP:XfD? There's always debates going on about articles that might need deleting from the encyclopedia. Throw in a view! You've been reading so much theory, you'll know as much as most people. There's an page on arguments you should avoid in deletion discussions which might help you.

    List of areas

    [edit]

    There's a lot to maintain at wikipedia, and your help would be gratefully received.

    • New Page Patrol checks every single new page to see if it meets the guidelines, wikifies it, tags it and marks it as patrolled. Would be very helpful if you'd help out :) Have a read an think which you might be interested in helping out there. You may end up using your CSD knowledge, or at least propose or nominate them for deletion.
    • Articles for Creation allows for any experienced, auto-confirmed user to review new articles at CAT:PEND. Read WP:WPAFC of you'd like to join!

    Help the encyclopedia move forward

    [edit]

    There's always discussions going on at requested moves and RfC. Why not see if you can offer a point of view? The most important (supposedly) at any given time are listed at WP:CENT. Hey, you can even wander around the village pump (the encyclopedic version of the water cooler) and see if there's any general discussions you're interested in.

    Discussion

    [edit]

    Think there's stuff there you can do? Are you ready for the final exam? I have to warn you, some of these will be involved in the practical test... oh yes, there's a practical test. If you're ready for the exam, please let me know, and I'll provide you with a link to it! :)

     Done I think I am ready for the final test. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bmusician/Adoption/Hghyux&oldid=1142052904"