User:WormTT/Adopt/Cyberpower678

Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hi Cyberpower678, and welcome to your adoption center. I've substitute across the first lesson for you and I thought you'd like to know that you do now have your own official page. As you can see from User:Worm That Turned/Adopt, I've created an adoption HQ, where you can read ahead in the lessons. I haven't finished them all as yet - the red linked ones are likely to change, but feel free to read ahead - it might help. The tests might include a couple of extra unique questions if I see an area that you might need a little extra development - don't take it as a negative, it should help. Also we now have a talk area for us to use, away from the more public areas - if you would like to use it - it's at User Talk:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Cyberpower678. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see. Worm^TT(talk) 11:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Lesson 1 - Five Pillars - complete

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.

User:Jimbo Wales

The Five Pillars[edit]

One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to eloquently sum up what we're here for.

Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.

Once you get your head around these five pillars, you will be a Wikipedian and a good one at that. All 5 are covered in my adoption school, though at different lengths. Be aware that I don't know everything and I would doubt anyone who said they did.

How articles should be written[edit]

The articles in Wikipedia are designed to represent the sum of human knowledge. Each article should be written from a neutral point of view – personal opinions such as right and wrong should never appear, nor should an editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.

To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Anything written in Wikipedia should be available to confirm by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything not verifiable by seeing it is published elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original.

Reliable sources[edit]

So what is a source? 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 considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This is a very rare exception – so self publishing is generally considered a no-no. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are considered unreliable by default. 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.

Questions?[edit]

Any questions or would you like to try the test? A few questions before I go:

When is it best to WP:IAR? I have a few ideas but I wish to gather a bigger concept of when to use it.
IAR is a very difficult concept, which people don't agree on. When the encyclopedia was first set up, I believe it was much more useful, as the "rules" did not cover as many situations, but I don't see it invoked nearly as often as it could be. In my personal opinion, IAR is a philosophy - a different way of working which is relatively unique to Wikis, it means that you shouldn't look at the rule on it's own, but the reasoning behind the rule. If the reasoning makes sense in the situation, then follow the rule, if it doesn't, then don't. I will give an example of 3RR... 3RR is a "bright line" rule, which says that violations normally result in a block. Well, I don't agree with that, because I believe it contradicts the blocking policy, which suggests that editors should be warned. Personally, I'm more likely to restrict the page, and shout at the editors than issue blocks.

I hope that makes sense. In summary, IAR means exactly what it says on the tin, improving the encyclopedia is the most important thing.
What if your source is reliable but not accessible to everyone? Would it still be accepted? Or will it be rejected because it fails WP:VERIFIABILITY? For example the source I used is an educational database that was accessed from a university.
We have WP:PAYWALL which covers this. If it's been published by a reliable source, then "ease of access" shouldn't be a factor. I'm not 100% certain what you mean by an educational database (it might be that it's not actually published, just a disseration by a student), but if you were to have a back issue of a journal from 1995 - it's an acceptable source, even if it's hard to find.
What can be specifically used as a criteria to determine WP:RELIABILITY?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no strict criteria, this is an area where you must excercise editorial judgement. There are some quick fail criteria, if it's community driven information, self published or an obviously biased source, but beyond that it becomes a matter of looking at the context and making a choice. The more that you do, the easier it gets, as you'll have seen similar situations, and there are noticeboards to help you, but there's no checklist.
What about online sources that aren't considered reliable according to policy but have demonstrated time and time again that their information is correct?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 10:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, this is why policy can change. If it's clear that the information is reliable, then it's reliable, but being correct is only half the battle, the other half is being trustworthy. Take, for example, Wikipedia. Besides the obvious problems with circular citing, it's quite simply not a trustworthy source, because it changes so often and can be editted by anyone. That's despite the fact that it can be shown to be correct time and again. Worm^TT(talk) 10:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I have source in mind that I have been using for years and they have never been wrong however some editors here would say it's an unreliable source. Would this be good case of WP:IAR.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 16:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Based on the information you've given me, I would say no. If the source is regarded as untrustworthy for whatever reason, then adding it to the encyclopedia would not be an "improvement", even if the information is correct. Worm^TT(talk) 07:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm ready for the test.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 10:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Five Pillars[edit]

This test is going to be based on questions. One word "Yes" or "No" answers are unacceptable. I want to see some evidence of a thought process. There's no time limit - answer in your own words and we'll talk about your answers.

1) Q - You have just discovered from a friend that the new Ford Escort is only going to be available in blue. Can you add this to the Ford Escort article and why?

A -First off, I doubt a lot of people would care if it's only available in blue, as such, I would seek consensus if that piece of information should be added. Most importantly though, friends are not reliable sources so the addition of this information is highly innapproprite if there are no secondary sources or, for this case, a primary source that confirms it.

Very good. You'd be surprised though, if a manager were to say "customers can pick any colour they like as long as it's blue", people would be very interested. Indeed, the colour is what a lot of people care about. But seeking consensus on a busy article isnt' a terrible idea. As for the reliable sourcing issues, you've got that perfect.

2) Q - A mainstream newspaper has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?

A - I may see it as racist, others may not. Consensus for the addition of such material should be sought first for either article before adding it. Copyright restrictions should also be observed as well. It should be scaled for fair use if possible or the newpaper should release the rights to the cartoon.

Exactly. I'd want to see some actual mainstream discussion of the cartoon before discussing it on either article.

3) Q - You find an article that shows that people in the state of Ohio eat more butternut squashes than anywhere in the world and ranks each of the United States by squashes per head. Interestingly you find another article that ranks baldness in the United States and they are almost identical! Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia? Perhaps the baldness article or the butternut squash article?

A- Per WP:OR, no. Making connections between to pieces of study is entirely circumstancial. Such information should be attributed to reliable secondary sources. Once sources that link these two have been found, a bold edit or consensus for its inclusion can be made.

Bish bash bosh.

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? Would you consider BBC news to be a reliable source on its rival, ITV?

A - It depends on what information is being taken from it. BBC is a primary source for The Troubles. Caution should be exercised that promotional information isn't extracted and used. BBC should not be used as a source for rival competitors except for it's viewpoint on them if necessary. Other independant sources should be used.

Caution should always be used on every topic. Comparing and contrasting sources and using editorial judgement leads to better articles. In general, I'd trust the BBC, but they're not always right, they have been known to follow the UK government quite blindly.

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?

A- Facebook is never a reliable source.

A very good rule of thumb. There are few exceptions to the rule, but they are so rare it's not worth worrying about them. In reality that magic "editorial judgement" is what we're looking for. You know Facebook is selfpublished, there's no editorial oversight, you'd need to be sure it who posted and that the source could not come from somewhere else...

6) Q - A "forum official" from the Daily Telegraph community forums comments on Daily Telegraph's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?

A- No. Forum's are not reliable sources unless it's only edited by staff of the website.

Just as above for facebook, very good.

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.amazon.co.uk/ or an "iTunes" link being used in a music related article?

A - It could be seen as advertising. I personally don't care but others may thank that Amazon or iTunes is being advertised in the article.

For some hard to source technical info, like track listings and release dates, I'd turn a blind eye, but in general, you've got it spot on.

8) Q - Would you have any issue with using the About Us page on Xerox as a source for the history section of the Xerox article.

A - Carefully being used, no. About us tends to have a lot of promotional content so preferrably, I would not use it.

As above, for hard to source technical info, I would accept it, but as you say, best not to use it.

9) Q - Everybody knows that the sky is blue right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze, do you need a source?

A - Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. If there is a reliable source that supports the fact the sky is not blue and against almost everyone's opinion that it is, then by all means use it. Although, I highly doubt a reliable source would say something like that.

I see your Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and raise you a Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue. There's always an essay to prove your point. Indeed, the sky isn't always blue. Right now, looking out my window, it is. Sometimes is grey, orange, pink, blue, black... The important thing is that contentious information should be sourced - and the onus is on the person adding the information. Worm^TT(talk) 14:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Results[edit]

All good. I'm very pleased. I'll fire up another lesson when you're ready.

Always ready when you are.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Lesson 2- Wikiquette - complete

Wikiquette[edit]

WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made.

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 and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. 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 software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment. I have a script that reminds you to do this if you think you'll forget.
Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. I cover more about this in my basics of markup language lesson - let me know if you'd like to take it. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.

How's the soup? --[[User:John]]
:It's great!! --[[User:Jane]]
::I made it myself! --[[User:John]]
Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Soup]]. --[[User:Jane]]
:I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]]

How's the soup? --John

It's great!! --Jane

I made it myself! --John

Let's move the discussion to Talk:Soup. --Jane

I tend to disagree. --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.
Watch out for common mistakes.
Did I mention that you should assume good faith?
Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.

Questions[edit]

Any questions?

Is it a bad thing to assume too much good faith? Like I did here?
That's a very difficult question, and one only you can answer. Many editors suggest that I assume too much good faith, that I am a soft touch. It's true that many of the editors who I work with end up blocked (often by myself), but I don't feel I'm assuming too much good faith on them. Users will tell you that "good faith is not a suicide pact" - I'd counter that if you can't assume good faith, perhaps you should withdraw from the situation.
Is it normal for an editor to lose their patience and freak out on Wikipedia every once and a while or are they expected to stay calm the entire even when being harassed and attacked? What about admins?
It's normal for a person to reach the end of their tether, admin and editor alike. What matters is how you handle that stress and how often you reach that point. For instance, myself, I generally get exhausted due to real life issues, less than encyclopedia ones. This January I took a complete break from the encyclopedia, as I was moving house. I think I only commented once, because I saw something that bugged me - but you could see the stress in that comment. It was right that I was taking a break. I also take weekends off, because I find that there are more important things to do with them. So, I take breaks, people don't see me freak out. I don't ragequit, I don't counter angrily, I don't do any of that. Admins are expected to remain professional and detached from situations, not simply take attacks and harassment. Yes, admins have to put up with more, and if they're likely to blow up, they're not likely to make a good admin.
If they outdent template breaks because there are so many indents, does that mean it wasn't Outdented soon enough? :P
The outdenting template is new, and I don't think there's a definite time it should be used. However, your logic is clearly flawed. If there are not too many indents, then you should outdent, if there are, you should :P
Are you allowed to Rick roll people in threads? :D
Almost never is the answer that I'm gonna have to give. Unless of course you know the target will get the send-up Worm^TT(talk) 08:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquette is fairly easy so I think I'm ready for the test.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 10:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Test[edit]

Have a look at the conversation below:

What's the best car in the world? -- Rod

Probably something German or Japanese. -- Freddie

Like what -- Rod's Mate

I dunno, something like Volkswagon? -- Freddie

Volkswagon Passat --Passat Lover <-Postion:A

What do you want it for? -- Jane

Volkswagon Passat --Passat Lover <-Position:B

Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In

1) Position A?

A- Rod's Mate

2) Position B?

A- Rod

3) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?

A- Competency does not mean socking. It's appalling how ABF there is when I lurk around SPI. This could be a user who cleanstarted or was an IP for a while.

Results[edit]

You are exactly right on the third question, but you may want to look at the indentation a bit more carefully for the first two. Worm^TT(talk) 11:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops. I looked at it from the edit window.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Still not quite right... one right, one wrong. I wonder if it's an iPad issue... Worm^TT(talk) 11:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to finish typing Rod's Mate. FAILFAILFAIL.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not an iOS issue, just a fail :P I'm not worried, I've seen you talk properly in the past, the test is aimed at newer editors. Worm^TT(talk) 11:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Lesson 3 - Copyright - complete

Copyright[edit]

Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. It's one of the most important lessons I teach, because not adhering to it can lead to a ban from Wikipedia. I'm hoping to take you back to basics and will be focusing on images. However, a lot of the same concepts apply to other media files and even text too! I'll mention a bit more about that at the end of the lesson.

Glossary[edit]

There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. If you are having trouble with any, here's a quick reference.

Term	Explaination
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. (Eg 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

Image Copyright on Wikipedia[edit]

Ok, now if I use a term that's not in the glossary and I don't explain, feel free to slap me. Are you ready for this? Ok. Take a deep breath. You can do it.

Copyright is a serious problem on a free encyclopedia. To remain free, any work that is submitted must be released under the WP:CC-BY-SA License and the WP:GFDL. You can read the actual text under those links, but the gist is that you agree that everything you write on the encyclopedia can be shared, adapted or even sold and all you get in return is attribution.

So, there are basically two types of images on wikipedia.

Free images
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 Wikipedia's strict conditions in order to use them. (Non free content criteria)

In practise, if it comes out of your head - is entirely your own work, you have the right to make that release. If you got it from somewhere else, you don't. That doesn't mean it can't be used though. You can in these situations

If the work has already been released under a compatible or less restrictive license.
If the work is in the "public domain" - Very old items, 150 years is a good benchmark
If the work is not free in certain circumstances (Non free content criteria summary below, but actually a lot more detailed)

There must be no free equivalent
We must ensure that the owner will not lose out by us using the work
Use as little as possible (the smallest number of uses and the smallest part possible used)
Must have been published elsewhere first
Meets our general standards for content
Meets our specific standards for that area
Must be used. (we can't upload something under fair use and not use it)
Must be useful in context. This is a sticking point, if it's not actually adding to the article, it shouldn't be used.
Can only be used in article space
The image page must attribute the source, explain the fair use for each article it is used and display the correct tag

It's a lot, isn't it! Well, let's have a look at the non free stuff. I'm going to suggest two different images. One, a tabloid picture of celebrity actress Nicole Kidman, and the other, the cover of the album Jollification by the Lightning Seeds. The tabloid picture of Nicole Kidman will instantly fail #1, because there can be a free equivalent - anyone can take a picture of Nicole. The album cover on the other hand is unique - there's no free equivalent. It's discussed in the article too, so showing it will be useful in context (#8). The copy we show should be shrunk, so that it can't be used to create pirate copies (#2). I couldn't put it on my userpage though (or even here) (#9)

Get it? Well here are a few more examples.

I could upload a publicity picture of Eddie Izzard. Now, the photographer holds the copyright to that particular picture of the hilarious man. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a performance Izzard is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) The publicity picture is considered replaceable fair use and so cannot be used on Wikipedia.
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, and therefore can't be used on Wikipedia.
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, take a copy of their logo, and upload it to Wikipedia. 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. So, if it meets all the other criteria as well, it can be used on Wikipedia.

Commons[edit]

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.

Copyright and text[edit]

So you think you've got your head around copyright and how it applies to images? Well done. Let's see how it applies to text. All the principles are the same - you can only include text which has been released under CC-BY-SA. In fact, if you notice, every time you click edit, it says right there

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 CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the 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. Got it? Good.

Questions[edit]

This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations.

I have no questions to ask. I lurked on Androzaniamy's adoption page and saw all of the questions and answers. Ready for the test.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Test[edit]

Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?

A- Wikipedia's mission is to be free. It uses a creative commons license where attribution through a link is all that is needed to freely use the content. Most of Wikipedia is free but non-free images or illegally uploaded images can't be redistributed as easily.

Very good

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?

A- The Commons repository is only allowed to be used for images that can be freely licenses for free use under the Creative Commons license. Hence the name, Commons.

Exactly

Q3) You find music displaying this licence [1] (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?

A- No. We may not be commercial but the license we support allows for commercial. Music that isn't meant to be redistributed commercially shouldn't be posted here because there are external sites pull Wikipedia content for commercial purposes.

It's a nasty question that, and I'm glad to say you've got it right.

Q4) A user uploads a poster which is a composite of all the Beatles album covers. Can he do this? It is his own unique composition.

A- If there is an article that supports the use of such a composition, fair use needs to be observed. Original copyright applies to each and every cover album. His own composition of other peoples' work can't be accepted here because it wasn't published elsewhere yet. The end result boils down to that the composition needs to be deleted.

Very good. There was an argument once on Doctor Who companions page, if we could have a composite image of the companions under fair use, and the decision was taken that it should be deleted. It's not an easy choice, but well done.

Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?

A- There are two answers to that question. Yes, and the press releases under the CC license, or, no, the press claims copyright, fair use can't be applied and your own photo would need to be taken.

Yep

Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?

A- Same as above.

Well, there's a little more difficulty on this one. If the prisoner is on death row, can fair use be applied? You can't just go and take your own photos. What do you think?

True. I forgot about that. If you could take your own pictures, the same answer applies above. If not, if you can get a press with the most flexible license to release it under commons, then by all means upload it. If you can't use the image and apply fair use criteria where needed to make the image allowed to be used on Wikipedia.

Q7) You find an article that matches a company website About Us page exactly. You check the talk page, and there's no evidence that the text has been released under WP:CC-BY-SA. What do you do?

A- I would tag it as a copyvio. The article can be fixed so immediate deletion isn't warranted. I would tag for speedy if it's not fixed in 3 days though.

Nod.

Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?

A- If you are referring to moving an article and images around then yes. Cut and paste moves distort the history of the article. A proper move should always be done by experienced editors with the necessary rights.

Exactly.

Q9) A final practical test... Go. Have a snoop around some wikipedia articles, see if you can find an image which is currently being used under "fair use". Come back and link to it (using [[:File:IMAGENAME]]. You must get the : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!)

A- That's an easy one. I uploaded two fair use images. File:Pokemon Best Wishes Season 2 Logo.png and File:PokemonBWRivalDestinies15.png

No problems at all.

Results[edit]

Very good, the hypothetical death row prisoner is a nice thought experiment and there's no right answer. I'm happy with yours, though I'd also be happy with the opposite :) Worm^TT(talk) 08:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ready for the next lesson.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 16:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Lesson 4 - Disputes - complete

Dispute resolution[edit]

No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very like 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.

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 2) It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama.

Accusations of attacks, bad faith, WP:OWNership, WP: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 that you can get some help.

A few?

Would you prefer "some", a "handful" or "plenty"

I would say "bucket full".—cyberpower _Offline^{Trick or Treat} 11:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

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.

Any questions?[edit]

I'm not much of a content contributor but rather a Wikignome and my last attempt to dispute resolute got me indeffed. So I am little nervous going down this route.—cyberpower _Offline^{Trick or Treat} 11:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the important thing about disputes is that acting quickly causes more problems than you think. You're always welcome to send me an email on a dispute problem, and if you can sort it out away from the pile of boards, then you are doing very well. Worm^TT(talk) 11:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I must say that a lot of is pretty much logical and should be common sense. Why do people not actually follow through with this kind of common sense. I guess common sense is no longer common. Another important question would be to ask, what if the other side leaves the top three categories and begins to move downward. How would I be able to proceed with constructive debate?—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Trick or Treat} 12:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Another good question would be to know when to remove yourself from a debate when it gets too intense.—cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 14:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It does make sense, but the problem is that when you're in a dispute, sense often goes out the window, especially when you are personally aggrieved. It's extraodinarily difficult to follow procedures when people are calling you names, especially if they are effecting you. The other problem is that following dispute resolution is de facto "escalating" the issue, so trying to sort it out between yourselves is expected, yet if the editors do not have the skills to sort things out... it just goes pear-shaped.

As to your questions, it's difficult to continue with constructive debate in the face of insults - the trick is to ignore them, cut through them to the substance of the discussion. You can always try doing something like this, but it can backfire. I'd recommend that if you feel there is no sensible discussion to be had, that is a good time walk away and get help.

When to remove yourself from a debate is difficult, and comes from experience. Going back over disputes in the past that you've been involved in and deciding when would have been the best place to step out is a fantastic place to start. Personally, I have a gut feeling as to when I should step out. I then write one more comment, don't press save, walk away from the computer, have a cup of tea, come back and read my comment. If I still feel exactly the same, I'll save it. If not, I'll delete it and leave the debate. Worm^TT(talk) 14:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That's kind of what I did to Leaky on your talk page. I no longer wanted to escalate matters so I decided to leave it hanging over there with my final statement.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Trick or Treat} 15:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The only issue I had with your statement there was the comment that you would "reciprocate". We don't work in an eye-for-an-eye culture, it ends up with both editors in the schtick. Much better is to be the bigger person. Worm^TT(talk) 09:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you be embarrassed if you realized you were in a hopeless debate and were deep in the debate before you realized?—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Trick or Treat} 15:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I have been in hopeless debates and other hopeless situations, where I was deep in the issue before I realised. I may have felt embarrassment at the time, but I have learnt from the experience and handle myself differently since, so I won't get into that sort of problem again. This is a good thing. Everyone makes mistakes, it's how you handle them that counts. Worm^TT(talk) 09:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I think I'm ready for the test.—cyberpower _Offline^{Trick or Treat} 14:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Since you have referenced me in this discussion, I would like to suggest where I think you went wrong, for your own benefit and so you might learn something from it. You injected yourself into a discussion (which did not directly involve you) using the highly inflammatory phrase "the morality of putting such a comment on a nominators talk page is despicable." You had no right to impugn my morality, it was blatantly Ad Hominem in that triangle up there and any decent Admin. participating would have struck it and warned you. Your subsequent attempts to extract yourself from the argument of your own making lacked integrity. Making an ill-judged remark about an editor is bad enough, colouring it with personalised invective looked like grandstanding. I hope that you have learnt something from it and will learn more from what your mentor can offer you. Being an Admin. is not all about detailed policy knowledge, it's about understanding how to handle yourself in a neutral & mature manner. rgds Leaky Caldron 15:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hang on Leaky. I had no issue with your comments on my page, because it made no difference to me. I had been following the discussion, I knew what was happening and your alert did not tell me anything I did not already know. However, your comment was did appear to be manipulative and implied that I was not following community norms for nomination. Questioning my judgement in such a highly charged atmosphere as that RfA could lead to others questioning your judgement, as could you storming into a learning area such as this with accusations. Much more sensible would be to approach me, as the mentor, with your concerns - I'm sure you trust me sufficiently to raise them with cyberpower. To his credit, cyberpower realised that he was in the wrong, backed off and apologised, all on his own. Worm^TT(talk) 15:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Question my judgement and question my motive - do not challenge my morality and describe my actions as despicable. As for coming here, I used (talk page stalker) and made no accusations. Yes, I do trust you. If you're not happy delete it or use revdel. Leaky Caldron 15:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I do always welcome outside input, especially from editors with histories. I find it does generally help, as I can act as a mediator, and my adoptee generally learns a very large amount from such interactions. Indeed, if you had approached me, I would have recommended you post here (or rather, on the talk page). A little warning would have been nice, though! Worm^TT(talk) 15:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, it was the stuff that occurred here [2] with Cyber I was referring to, not anything that occurred subsequently on your TP later that day. rgds. Leaky Caldron 15:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I gave an opinion, not a challenge. I agree the wording could have been better. I was emotionally off, I went on a wikibreak. I came back in a calmed down state. All is well. I mean no disrespect to you Leaky. As for other people's actions, I believe I do reserve the right to evaluate them as I see fit. If an admin deletes the main page by accident I would evaluate and describe that action as silly and trout him. I called it despicable because the appearance you gave off was you were subtly but visibly trying to manipulate the outcome of that RfA but there is no reason re-hash old discussions and arguments and I think we should let go of this.—cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 16:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Something called WP:AGF. Drawing attention to the plight of the candidate might have lead to a timely suggestion to withdraw the candidacy at that time which would show the candidate in a far better light in the future. It has been done before, to both the candidate's and community's benefit. Leaky Caldron 16:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I should have worded it to sound less hostile and mean. My intentions have already been stated.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Trick or Treat} 17:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution[edit]

1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss?

A- If you make a bold edit that you think improves the encyclopedia and another editor reverts you, instead of reverting and edit warring over it, discuss it.

Exactly. The important thing is that discussion really matters.

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- No one. Both will end up being block for 24 hours for edit warring and the article ends up staying the way it was. Technically though, person A gets the last revert.

Technically schmechnically. They're both edit warring, there is no winner, only a pair of losers.

3) What is vandalism?

A- Any edit made that intentionally destroys and disrupts the project.

Intentionally being the most important word.

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

A- editor assistance is a means of asking for another editors advice. A third opinion is an informal method of settling a dispute. It asks for an unbiased editor to give their position of the dispute. Requests for comment is means if gaining input from a chunk of the community. RfCs should only be used in cases where previous disputes couldn't be settled or discuss a community wide change such as my active new user right proposal over at VP which is garnering quite a bit of support.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Trick or Treat} 12:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Very good answer :) No problems here.

Lesson 5 - Deletion - complete

Deletion Policies[edit]

While Wikipedia does strive to include as much information as possible, there is a practical limit as to what we're going to include as an article. Just because you think your pet cat is the cutest thing on the planet, that does not mean you should create an article about it. There's a whole list of things that Wikipedia is not. Some relate simply to style or formatting, such as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia or Wikipedia is not censored. Most, however, relate to the content of the encyclopedia, and what is considered encyclopedic and what isn't. WP:NOT is an official policy, which means that all articles must adhere to it. If they don't, they're at risk of deletion.

Wikipedia has three methods to delete pages. The first, and by far fastest, is the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. These criteria depict what content absolutely cannot be kept on Wikipedia for whatever reason and must be removed immediately. The most commonly used ones are as follows:

General criteria 1 (G1) or G2 - Patent Nonsense and/or Test pages. Commonly created by new accounts, these have no meaningful purpose at all. Mark these pages with the templates {{db-nonsense}} or {{db-test}}.
G3 - Vandalism. Obvious junk that you can understand (and so isn't nonsense) but obviously isn't intended to be the least bit helpful. This includes redirects that get made as a result of someone moving pages around disruptively. Mark these with {{db-vandalism}}
G4 - Recreation of deleted material. If a page is deleted through an XfD debate (see below) and it gets re-created essentially identically to the previous version, it can be speedied under G4. This does not apply to pages deleted under any other method (although another speedy criteria may fit and can be used), or pages that have been "userfyed" (see below). Tag these with {{db-repost}}
G10 - Attacks. If a page is created with the apparently singular purpose of attacking someone, it's a candidate for deletion. Mark these with {{db-attack}}.
G11 - Advertising. If a page is so blatantly advertising (for anything, even a person) that it really doesn't serve any other purpose at all, it can be deleted. {{db-ad}}
G12 - Copyright violations, or "copyvio". If a page meets ALL of these criteria, it should be deleted immediately for GFDL compliance. Tag these with {{db-copyvio|website}}

Direct copy of a non-GFDL-compatible website
No non-copyrighted content in history
All copyvio content added at once by one user
No assertion of permission or fair use, or that content is public domain or freely available.

Article criteria 1 or 3 (A1 or A3) - Little to no context OR no content. For articles that provide no useful information about the subject, are completely empty, or consist only of links elsewhere. Note that an article can be as short as a single sentence but still qualify as a stub. Mark with {{db-empty}}.
A7 - Non-notable subject. An article about a person, group, band, company, or website that does not establish why it is notable. If this is somewhat controversial, consider another deletion method. Mark with {{db-bio}}, {{db-corp}}, {{db-band}}, or {{db-web}}.

Whenever you mark a page for speedy deletion, it's usually nice to notify the author. Each of the speedy deletion tags shows the proper warning to use - just copy that code and paste it on their user talk page. You are not required to do this, but it usually helps alleviate some confusion on the part of the author.

If the page doesn't fall under a CSD, but you're pretty certain it can be deleted without too much discussion on the issue, you can PROD it. PROD stands for PROposed Deletion. To PROD an article, add the template {{subst:prod|reason}} to the top of the article. YOU MUST include the "subst:" code at the beginning of the template. If you're not sure what that is, means, or does, I'll explain when we get to templates. For now, just do it. This adds a little blue box at the top of the page to indicate that the page is being considered for deletion. If the box remains in place for five days, the article will be deleted. However, anyone can contest the deletion by removing the template. If you still believe the article should be deleted after this happens, you should open a debate at WP:AFD, which I'll explain how ot use in a moment. PROD's also come with a notice for the author, {{subst:PRODWarning|Article title}}.

Finally, the XfD processes (XfD stands for Anything for Deletion) allow users to debate on the merits (or lack thereof) a particular article and decide by consensus what is to become of it. These are not votes - sheer numbers have no effect on the outcome of these debates. Only reasoned comments are considered towards the result of the debate. The template at right shows all the different types of deletion debates. The most frequently used is AfD, Articles for Deletion. Each XfD page outlines the process for each, which often is somewhat complicated. Deletion review is where users can appeal a deletion debate, and follows similar procedures.

Before anything is deleted, though, one should always check to see if there is any alternative. There are a wide range of cleanup templates that can be used to indicate an article needs attention (templates which we'll cover in more detail later, I'll just give you the link for now). One could always take care of the cleanup themselves. It's also possible there is usable content in the article that can be merged elsewhere, or it's just under the wrong title and needs to be moved. Wikipedia's purpose is to include as much information as possible, so deletion should always be a last resort.

Questions[edit]

Any questions or would you like to try the "Test"

Ah. CSDs. Most difficult concept to grasp for me. If I ever became an admin, I would have most certainly stayed away from it.—cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 14:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a really hard one, and you're not the only person to find this taxing. What I can suggest is that being conservative is good, only CSD if there's no possible way that someone can disagree. Worm^TT(talk) 14:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess if you simplify it in your head it all boils down to, can the article be fixed or does it need to be deleted? Does a CSD apply? If not, PROD? Pretty much common sense, even though its very difficult to apply it.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Trick or Treat} 15:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly part of it, and I'd agree that's the way you should be doing it when you're patrolling, but many of the CSD criteria don't come down to fixability. For example, an effectively empty article on a notable subject could fall under CSD#A1 - but it would be a good idea to try and write the article yourself :) Worm^TT(talk) 13:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm ready for the test.—cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 21:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?

A If you think an article should be deleted but don't know if passes any criteria for deletion, it should be prodded. If you know it should be deleted but yet it doesn't pass a speedy deletion rational, a debate should be opened to discuss its future.

Well, I wouldn't PROD if you don't know if passes deletion criteria - in that case you should start a discussion. One situation for PROD should be used for uncontroversial deletions which don't fit the "speedy criteria", so for example, a non-notable band which asserts its notability. If you expect discussion, then AfD is the place to go.

2) Most WP:CSD categories are fairly clear, but one of the more difficult is A7. Describe a situation where A7 would be appropriate :)

A If someone wrote an article about their garage band, chances are it isn't notable and can be tagged as such.

Quite possibly. The important thing is that they don't even say why it's notable, so if they have won a local talent contest... well, you've got a little more difficulty.

I've created 5 pages, which could be deletable. What would you do if you stumbled upon them in mainspace?

3)First

A Extreme point of view. Very opinionated as well as unsourced material. Attempts to search for sources reveals no reliable secondary sources. Tag as A7.

A7 works, there's no indication of notability. As does A1, there's no real info there.

4)Second

A I do not see much evidence of notability, though I find a few sources. I would recommend PRODing it or submitting it to AfD.

Sounds good to me.

5)Third

A I would WP:AGF and mark as G2.

I'd go G1 myself, it's patent nonsense - but I can understand a G2.

6)Fourth

A Until I looked at the references, I had no clue what the article was talking about. I would consider having it improved and tag it accordingly but if nothing is done to the article, I would tag as A1.

Oh, no no no. The article is poor, but there's clearly context there. It may be that it should be merged into another article, or a stub could be created. Worst case scenario, a PROD, but not a speedy - that's definitely wrong.

Perhaps, but an AfD could also be initiated because nothing satisfies me more than to see what the community thinks of the article.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Trick or Treat} 15:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly agree with that. Worm^TT(talk) 15:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

7)Fifth

A G1

G1 is wrong, I'm afraid. The text is understandable, although without context and G1 specifically excludes poor writing. A1 would be much more appropriate.

I would most certainly consider it G1 because the writing is clearly nonsense in my eyes. Nothing encyclopedic, nothing productive, and nothing useful, especially with the last sentence.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Trick or Treat} 15:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

G1 specifically has a provision against this. This excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism and hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material. If you can understand it, it's not G1.

I can see A1 now but would prefer G3 because its blatantly obvious that its not an article, just a hoax or a prank and a waste of time for readers.—cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 16:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You'd get no disagreement from me on that. Worm^TT(talk) 08:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Results[edit]

Well, I've seen you do better, but you were aware that you had a few issues with Deletion. Keep working on it, I'm sure you'll get there in the end.

Lesson 6 - Policy and consensus - complete

Consensus[edit]

Consensus is the way that decisions are made in Wikipedia. You may see the odd !vote (a coding joke, ! means not - confirming that this is WP:NOTAVOTE and then promptly voting), but these decisions are not made based upon weight of numbers, but rather through the weight of the arguments. Consensus should be created through discussion and any member of the community is welcome to enter in discussions. Yes, that means you. You have every right to put forward an opinion, but if your opinion can be based in policy it will hold a lot more weight.

Consensus applies to everything on Wikipedia, from simple article edits (see WP:BRD and the dispute resolution lesson) to large policy decisions. Consensus can also change, it does not necessarily remain the same so if you see something wrong, don't be afraid to raise it. When involved in a consensus discussion, be careful not to fall foul of canvassing, something that is frowned upon. In other words, don't bring in more people to back you up.

There are a couple of exceptions to consensus. Anything decreed from the Wikimedia foundation or through WP:Office actions must be adhered too. Although these are rare, it's worth keeping in mind. Some of the things passed down in the past is that care must be taken over biographies of living people and copyright violations.

Community[edit]

The community is anyone who writes and edits Wikipedia. This includes you, me and any user who clicks that little edit button. They need not be registered, which is why you see IP editors. Although some registered editors treat IPs like second-class citizens, there is no reason they should be. I've seen a few reports that show that the vast majority of Wikipedia was written by IP editors. It does mean that the vast majority of vandalism is also caused by IP editors, hence the disillusionment. I'll get onto vandalism in a separate lesson, so don't worry too much about that now.

Policy and guidelines[edit]

Everything we do in wikipedia is governed by policy and guidelines, but policies and guidelines were written down once and discussed at length. Oh yes, almost every policy and guideline is based on consensus, leading us right back to the start of this lesson. Policies don't change much; they describe how the community works, and in general that remains fairly constant at the policy level.

Ignore all rules[edit]

What? Is this really right? Well, what the ignore all rules policy says is "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it." My personal interpretation is that this a catchall to remind us that we're not in a bureaucracy, that the important thing is the encyclopedia. I've never had to implement it personally, but I do keep it in mind.

Questions[edit]

Well, that's that. Do you have any questions on Consensus or policy?

I believe I am ready and that the deletion lesson can be collapsed.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Policy[edit]

1) What is the difference between a policy, a guideline and an essay?

A A policy is a widely accepted practice that all editors should follow. A guideline is an accepted practice by consensus that should be treated with common sense and should be followed in spirit and not by the letter. An essay is merely written advice towards editors. It is not policy nor a guideline.

2) Can Policy change?

A Yes. If a high level of consensus is present, policy according to consensus can change.

3) In your opinion. Is Wikipedia a bureaucracy?

A No. Although everyone has different rights, they are essentially at the same level. Policies and guidelines aren't here to tell editors what they can and cannot do but rather what should be accepted and rejected. They merely document existing practices.

Lesson 7 - Templates - complete

Templates[edit]

Templates allow you to post large sections of text or complicated sections of code while only typing a few characters. Templates work similar to regular links, but instead of [[double square brackets]], you use {{curly braces}}. To call a template, just type the title of the template between the double braces. You don't need to include the "Template:" prefix; the MediaWiki software automatically searches within the Template namespace for what you're looking for. Only if the page you're looking for is in a different namespace do you need to specify it. See below:

What I type

What appears

Comments

en

This user is a native speaker of the English language.

This calls Template:User en. All content there (that is marked to be included, see below) appears where I type the template code.

{{WormTT DYK}}

I get a red link because no page exists at Template:Worm DYK.

This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know.

When I specify the User: namespace, the userbox I have at that location appears. Thus, a template does not have to be in the Template: namespace to work.

This user has written or expanded a number of articles featured in the Did You Know section on the Main Page.

I get a {{{1}}} where a number should appear. This is due to the fact that I did not specify a parameter in that template.

One template you can use to welcome new users, Template:W-basic, has several parameters which can customize its appearance. Most of those parameters are named, in that you have to specify to the template what the name of the parameter is when you use it. {{w-basic|anon=true}} sets the parameter "anon" to "true", which generates a message directed towards anonymous users. The advantage to named parameters is that they can be placed in any order, but they must be spelled exactly right or they will not work. The template also uses an unnamed parameter, one which does not have to be specified when it is put into use. Templates automatically assign a numerical name to unnamed parameters when they are used, starting with "1". {{w-basic|message}} sets the unnamed parameter "1" to "message", which is what that parameter is used for in that template. The userbox above can specify the number of states visited with that same unnamed parameter. Unnamed parameters must be in sequential order to work properly, unless you force them to be out of order by using syntax such as {{template|2=foo|1=bar}}. Using "1=, 2=" is also required if the parameter has a = anywhere within (occasionally the case with some external links).

When writing templates, there are some extra tags and codes that have special effects when a template is called.

Code	What it does
{{{1}}}	Causes a parameter "1" to display at that location.
{{{name}}}	Causes a parameter "name" to display at that location. (Calling the template {{Template\|name=Worm}} will cause "Worm" to display at that location)
{{{1\|foo}}}	Sets a default value "foo" for parameter "1", which prevents the parameter from displaying as it does in the userbox above. This can be blank: {{{1\|}}}
<includeonly>foo</includeonly>	Causes the text "foo" to only appear when the template is called. It will not appear on the template page, or in previews when editing the template. As a result, any code included in these tags will not be executed until the template is called.
<noinclude>foo</noinclude>	Removes the text "foo" from the template. Documentation (notes on how to use a template) is always included with these tags so that it is not called along with the template.
{{{1\|lorem ipsum}}} <noinclude>dolor sit amet</noinclude> <includeonly>etc...</includeonly>	When this template is called, it will display parameter 1 first, followed by "etc...". If parameter 1 is not defined, the template will display "lorem ipsum etc..."

Conditional templates allow for use of more intricate templates, with optional parameters or different effects depending on what a certain parameter is set to. They use parser functions such as #if: to apply certain conditions to the code. Use of these functions can allow you to create some rather advanced templates, but often get exceedingly complicated and should only be edited by those users who fully understand how they work. Since these are rather complex, they will not be covered in your exam, but if you'd like we can cover them after we've completed the other topics.

I forgot to mention - there are two ways to call a template. Transclusion is simply calling the template as I showed you above: {{template}}. This displays the template where you put the call for it, but leaves the curly braced call in place so that it's easy to remove. This also causes the template to update every time the page is loaded, if it has been edited or has a time-sensitive variable. Substitution, or "subst'ing" a template, causes the opposite effect. To substitute a template, add the code "subst:" at the beginning of the call: {{subst:template}}. When this is done, you are seeing the curly-braced call for the last time, because when you save the page, the MediaWiki software will replace that call with the template's code. This causes the template to lock in place - however it was when you called it, is how it's going to be from then on. This makes things a little difficult to remove, though, as instead of the simple template call, you've probably got lines of code that are now clogging up your article. Depending on how the template it written, it may require subst'ing to work properly, or it may require that it is not subst'ed. The page at WP:SUBST gives details on what templates should, must, or must not be substituted. When writing templates, it can also be useful to enclose the subst: code within <includeonly> tags. See below.

Code	Displays	Comments
{{CURRENTTIME}}	01:33	Template is transcluded, so updates every time you load the page.
{{subst:CURRENTTIME}}	22:56	Template is substituted, so is stuck on the time I saved this page.
{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTTIME}}	15:12	Here, the template acts as though it were transcluded on the source page of this lesson, User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Templates. However, it was substituted when I placed this lesson on the main adoption page, and so is stuck at the time shown.

This lesson should show you how templates can be really useful for a lot of things. However, we can make templates even more functional and more powerful by having them do different things depending on what the parameters we set are. For more information on that, see the optional lesson on Advanced Templates.

Questions[edit]

I'd ask if you had any questions, but I believe you are stronger with templates than I am! Indeed, if you ever fancy writing an advanced templates lesson... I'd be happy to change that red link to blue (if you don't mind me tweaking what you write). Worm^TT(talk) 14:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ready for the test. I'd be honored to write a lesson up.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Templates Test[edit]

Well, this is a bit of fun, isn't it? One of the more difficult things to test.

Well, for this test, I've created you a nice new page at User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Cyberpower678/Template. It's a template! Have a look at it now. Depending on how you call it, different things will happen. So I'd like you to call the template so that you get the correct result. No using subst, just use the parameters of your nice new template.

1) I intend to pass this module! (Template module)

A: User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Cyberpower678/Template

2) My name is Cyberpower678 and I intend to pass this module! (Template module)

A: User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Cyberpower678/Template

3) My name is Cyberpower678 and I intend to eat a butterfly. (Template module)

A: User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Cyberpower678/Template

4) My name is Cyberpower678 and I intend to pass this module! I am really good with templates. (Template module)

A: User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Cyberpower678/Template

NB, to get (4) to work properly... you will have to edit the template. Bwhahahah :D

No I don't.

I know - but you're the first person to notice that you don't ;) Worm^TT(talk) 15:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No way? What did others do?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it.. someone had been playing with the template - so the "extra_message" wasn't there last time. There is another way to get round it (without using the extra message), but nevermind... Worm^TT(talk) 15:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ready for the next lesson.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 16:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Lesson 8 - Vandalism - complete

Vandalism[edit]

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 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:

(diff) (hist) . . Shigeru Miyamoto‎; 14:32 . . (+28) . . 201.152.102.192 (Talk) (→Competition with Sony and Microsoft)

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.

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.
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.
The next link is the article that the edit was made to.
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.
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.
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.
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: 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: —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 16:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

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: [3] Why you think this is vandalism: Making a sex article that talks about stars is clearly intended to disruptive.
Diff 2: [4] Why you think this is vandalism: Motorcycle to Men especially followed by enthusiast is Definetely vandalism.
Diff 3: [5] Why you think this is vandalism: repeated addition of unsourced suspicious material.

How to Revert[edit]

Well, If you're using anything but Internet Explorer, 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.

Questions[edit]

Not much of a test this time, because there's so much to read... but let me know when you are ready :)

Do I have to show three vandalism edits?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 20:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Humour me. Worm^TT(talk) 08:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Done Ready for the test.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 20:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Q1) How would you define vandalism?

A: Any form of action that intends to disrupt or destroy. In this case, it's any edit or logging action made to Wikipedia, made intentionally, in an attempt to disrupt or destroy the project.

Very good, the intent is what matters.

Q2) We currently have 4 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: I believe that four levels of warnings are appropriate. This allows us to see if the user is acting in bad faith or is just unintentionally being disruptive. It also allows for the user in question to know that we are being serious and will take action if necessary.

Yep, that makes sense

Q3) 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 WP:AIV

A: Not necessarily. If the editor is clearly acing in bad faith they can block them beforehand. I don't believe in a set requirement and would evaluate each editor accordingly at AIV.

All good here.

Q4) When do you think you might use the "only" warning?

A: I would use it iff the editor is evidently, intentionally being grossly disruptive.

Iff? there's no other situation than gross disruption?

I use gross disruption vaguely. There is no firm rule when and when not to use it. Judgement should be used when templating.

Q5) Do you think that vandals should be allowed to remove the warnings?

A: It is their talk page, they are free to do so if they choose.

Yep, that's policy. What about your interpretation, would you change that?

I would prefer them to keep it for record purposes but it wouldn't bug me if they removed it.

Q6) Is a copyright violation vandalism?

A: Not necessarily. See definition of vandalism in answer 1.

You say it's not necessarily, does that mean you can think of situations where copyvio is vandalism?

Intentional addition of copyrighted material with a clear motive to cause legal issues can be seen as vandalism. There are people out there who don't know what copyright violations are and when they copy and paste sources, sincerely believe that they are helping Wikipedia. I can not see that as vandalism but rather unintentional disruptive editing.

Q7) 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: Why? The vandals will just register an account or many and vandalize from them. It also defeats the purpose of anyone being able to edit.

I'm happy with that answer.

Working the encyclopedia[edit]

Final module, well done for getting this far. I don't know if you realise, but the other 8 modules dealt with the theory of wikipedia, and didn't actually ask you to do anything. Well, this module 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, and what's notable and what's not, reliable sources and what 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. 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! I've managed to do a few so far, you can have a look at mine if you like I keep a record at User:Worm That Turned/DYK. 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 Project[edit]

Have a look at your favourite 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 :D

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 article on WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions which might help you.

Patrolling[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 :D Have a read an think which you might be interested in helping out there. You may end up using your WP:CSD knowledge, or at least nominate them for deletion.
Recent change patrol, vandalism patrol. it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it! I've done quite a bit, but it still only accounts for 20% of my work here.

Cleanup[edit]

WP:CLEANUP is one of the biggest backlogs on wikipedia. There's lots of things to do there, from wikification to re-writing articles to comply with NPOV. Every little does help, so whatever you can do, please do. As an example, I had a go at Category:Self-contradictory articles. When I got there, there were 400. I chipped away at them at about 10 per day, many were no longer contradictory or mis-tagged. They're now at around 70, a much more respectable number. Every little helps. I cannot stress this enough.

Help the encyclopedia move forward[edit]

There's always discussions going on at requested moves or WP:Requests for comment. 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), see if there's any general discussions you're interested in.

Questions[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. ;)

I'm back and I think I'm ready. I did do a lot of stuff so I hope that can count towards my final.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Final exam is here. The practical section should be completed within the week and not refer to past accomplishments. Worm^TT(talk) 07:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards