User talk:Crassic/Adoption

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flying away This user is currently away on a vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries.
User Talk Gallery Articles Contribs


Contents

[edit] Adoption

Hey there! I'm Arknascar44, but you can call me Arky :) I saw you wanted to be adopted, and I'd be happy to oblige! If you accept, just say so here or on my talk page. Thanks, and happy editing, Arky¡Hablar! 22:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Arky! Thank you for taking me up for the "adoption." If it wouldn't a trouble, I would like to take you up on your offer. Thank you. :) - Crassic 22:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
No trouble at all! You are my first adoptee, by the way *shower of balloons from ceiling*. If you have any questions about anything at all, don't be afraid to ask me here or at my talk page. I would also like you to tell me your interests and ambitions here on Wikipedia, so that I can create a "curriculum" especially for you (I'm not the kind of person who'll have a set curriculum for everyone, because everyone has something different to offer here). Happy editing, Arky¡Hablar! 22:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't really know exactly what to put. Basically, I had put in a pre-mature application to become an administrator and I would just like to help "build" my reputation, I suppose. Know the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia and virtually everything of the sort. Also, apparently, I should really get to know the difference between blocking and banning. Anything you could do to help me out in this process of becoming a known, good editor here would be greatly appreciated. - Crassic 22:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I have created a curriculum page for you here. Don't be alarmed if you don't understand it; all will be explained :) Arky¡Hablar! 23:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm still reading a few articles, but things are becoming a lot clearer now. :) - Crassic 23:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool! That's good to hear! Do you have any questions about the information ↓below↓ or are you ready to move on? Arky¡Hablar! 01:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Um, once I finish reading the main content on all of these (which will likely be tomorrow night,) I will be ready. But post at will. - Crassic 02:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Awesome! Take your time, though; this stuff is the basis for everything else you will learn. Just say right here when you're done, so that I know when to move on, but, again, no rush. Thanks, Arky¡Hablar! 03:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have finished reading the main content on all of the pages. Let's continue, if you will. - Crassic 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I really do enjoy these tools. I did expirement with it a little, but won't mess with it too much until I get a 90% grasp of the entire concept. - Crassic 03:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basic Policies and Background of Wikipedia

Alright, Crassic! Let the fun begin!

We'll start with the basics. The most fundamental and important policies of Wikipedia are its Five Pillars. They are as follows:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
This means that Wikipedia strives to provide accurate information on all areas of knowledge. You must be able to back up everything you say with reliable sources and you cannot just make things up. Wikipedia is not a list of facts, a place for your own opinions or advertising, or a dictionary.
See also: What Wikipedia is not
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view
This simply means that Wikipedia does not advocate any particular view. It equally represents every major point of view, without giving any "undue weight" or presenting it as the best or correct view. Points of view should be verifiable as well.
See also: The Neutral Point of View policy
Wikipedia has free content
This means that Wikipedia can contain absolutely no Copyright Violations. All its text is licensed accordingly. You also need to remember that anyone can edit any article, so no one person can take ownership of a single article; rather, it is the community's article.
See also: GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), which all Wikipedia's text is licensed under
Wikipedia has a code of conduct

This means that all editors have to behave accordingly. In order to avoid edit wars and Three-revert-rule violations (making more than 3 reverts to an article in under 24 hours), try to reach consensus instead. Also, don't mess with Wikipedia to make a point and assume that others are doing what they think is right for the encylopedia.

See also: WikiLove: An essay
Wikipedia does not have firm rules (besides these five pillars)

If a rule gets in the way of you improving the encyclopedia, ignore it! Be Bold when you update a page. Even if you think you made a mistake, or if you're unsure how helpful your edits are, perfection is not required! Sure, it should be aimed for, but any good-faith contribution to the encyclopedia is helpful! Once again, BE BOLD!

See also: Ignore all rules

Remember, there is no such thing as a stupid question! If you have one, don't be afraid to ask it; I enjoy discussion :) Arky¡Hablar! 00:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Tools of the Trade

Vandalism reversion and spell-checking are great, and crucial to how Wikipedia runs. So, some editors have devised ways, through the magic of JavaScript, to make these processes much easier.

[edit] The Tools

Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool
This tool is used for vandalism reversion, and also has a spellcheck feature.
Navigational Popups
This tool allows previewing of articles, userpages, and more by simply mousing over them. You can revert vandalism and check a user's contributions with it, too.
Twinkle (or Twinklefluff, whichever you prefer)*
This tool can be used to revert vandalism, but is most useful for reporting users to Administrator Intervention against Vandalism, warning users, nominating pages for deletion, etc.
Cacycle's wikEd*
This tool makes editing easier with instant previews, instant "diff" loading, highlighting of different kinds of text, and has more easy to use editing buttons than the default editing layout. Please note that it does not work on talk pages.

* Requires Mozilla Firefox

[edit] Installation

To install these programs, add the text:

importScript("User:Lupin/recent2.js");
importScript('User:Lupin/popups.js');
importScript("User:Lupin/autoedit.js");

var wikEdLoadRegExTypoFix = true;
 
 
// install [[User:Cacycle/wikEd]] in-browser text editor
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'
+ 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cacycle/wikEd.js'
+ '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"></' + 'script>');

importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js');

to what is called your "monobook.js" file. Yours is located here (notice that the link is currently red, as nothing has been added there yet. When you add something, the link will turn blue).

[edit] Instructions

Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool
Directly below the Wikipedia search box is a white box labeled "toolbox". In it, there will be links entitled "Filter Recent Changes" (near the middle) and "Live spellcheck" (at the bottom). To hunt for vandalism, click the "Filter recent changes" link. This takes you to a page, with should begin to update within 3-5 seconds. Be sure to check the boxes at the top of the page, except for the ones labeled "Automatically expand new content" and "Only show edits unchanged after four updates". Soon, a growing list of edits appears, with the bad words in the edit in bold. Click the "show details" link next to the edit to see the "diff", or changes made. If the edit is OK, do not touch it! Just click the "hide details" link right where the "show details" link was. If it is vandalism, click the "rollback" link, which will take you to the page, where an edit is made, and then you go back to the recent changes feed where you were before. If the page gets too long, just click any of the "remove earlier output" links (although clicking the one nearest the bottom of the page makes the most sense.
To use the live spellcheck feature, click the "Live spellcheck" link at the bottom of your toolbox. This will take you to a page that is very similar to your recent changes feed page. Again, after less than 5 seconds, you should see the page updating itself. It does not update as fast as the recent changes feed, so don't worry if you have to wait a bit for a correction. When one appears, click on the misspelled word, NOT on the rollback link. You will probably have to find the word in the article yourself, so highlight all the text in the article and press Control+F and type in the misspelled version of the word to find it (Apple+F for Apple/Macintosh). Then, correct it, and hit the "save" button. An edit summary should be provided for you.
Navigational Popups
The usage of this tool is very simple. Just mouse over any link in the entire wiki, and a box will appear, previewing the page. There are also some headings inside that box, entitled "actions", "user" (if the link s to a user page of user talk page), and "popups". The "actions" header, if moused over, reveals a menu of actions that can be performed on a page, such as looking at its history, moving it (changing its name), editing it, and more. The "user" header, if moused over, gives options such as "Talk Page", "Edit talk page", "Leave comment" (leave a message), "Email user", and "contributions". You shouldn't ever have to use the "popups" header.
Twinkle
Twinkle adds tabs for easy use, to the right of the "edit this page" button. The "watch" tab adds the page to your watchlist, a list of pages you can keep track of, in terms of who edits them and when. The tabs "csd", "xfd", "prod", and "rpp" (only visible when you are reading an article, essay, or policy, not userpages or user talk pages) won't be needed until your next lesson, so don't bother with them...for now. The "last" tab shows the most recent edit to whatever page you are on.
Now for the interesting part. When you rollback an edit using Lupin's anti-vandal tool, click the "talk" link next to the username or IP address of the vandal, which takes you to their talk page. Then, click the "warn" tab at the top of the page, next to the other Twinkle tabs. A window then pops up. Depending on how many warnings the vandal has received, and the severity of the vandalism you rolled back, adjust the drop down box at the top of the window to the correct level; anywhere from "General Note" to "Only Warning". Then, in the drop down box directly below it, specify the kind of vandalism performed (page blanking, improper humor, editing tests, etc.) Then, in the box next to "Linked Article", type the name of the article that was vandalized. Any additional comments should go in the big box at the bottom of the warning window. When you finish, click "Submit".
To report a user to an administrator to get them blocked, click the "arv" tab near the "warn" tab on the user's talk or user page. This opens a new window. In the drop down box at the top of the window, select the reason for reporting the user. Optional fields (areas that don't need to be, but should be filled out) include adding an article the user primarily vandalizes (if there is one) in the box next to "Linked article", and some check boxes. If the user vandalized after someone posted a "Final Warning" or something similar on their talk page, after multiple warnings were given before it, click the "Vandalism after final warning given", and if the user seems only to be doing vandalism, and nothing constructive, click the "Evidently vandalism only account". When you finish, click "Submit query".
wikEd
The wikEd interface is mostly self-explanatory, and the buttons are clearly labeled. The only ones that need explaining are the instant preview and instant "diff" buttons. To use the instant preview feature (much faster than the default "Show preview" button) click the magnifying glass button right next to the "Show preview" button. This loads the preview directly below the editing window. To use the instant "diff" feature, simply click the button with the triangle (or the Greek letter Delta, if you want to get technical) located directly to the right of the "Changes" button. Text in green means text that was added, and text in red stands for text the was removed. Keep in mind that wikEd does not work on talk pages!
If you have any questions, just ask them here! Also, please tell me when you have completed this step, and are pretty good at handling these tools, so I can know when to move on. Thanks, and happy editing, Arky¡Hablar! 00:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreak

See also: Wikibreak

Hey Crassic, glad you are enjoying the tools! I will be away for the next two weeks, and so will have little time to edit or check up on things here. I will return on September 3rd. However, I will be able to check my email. To email me with a question, just go to the page Special:Emailuser/Arknascar44 or click the "email" link at the top of my userpage, and type your message. I will do my best to check it as often as possible. Cheers, Arky¡Hablar! 01:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It'll give me a good chance to catch up and thoroughly read all of these things. Have a good break, guy. - Crassic 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ready?

Hello again, Crassic! I'm back from my vacation, and I'm willing to continue on to your next lesson, if you are ready. If you are, just say so and we can get going! Cheers, Arky ¡Hablar! 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm ready whenever you are. Crassic(talk) 21:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Great! I'll start momentarily (nice signature by the way!) Cheers, Arky ¡Hablar! 21:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Reversion

See also: Wikipedia:Vandalism

Alright, Crassic, let's begin our next lesson. Knowing when and when not to revert a user for vandalism is a very important piece of knowledge for any Wikipedian, as users can become angry if reverted incorrectly, and may lash out. This can cause much unneeded stress for both the reverter and to revertee.

Therefore, you must be able to understand what vandalism is and what it is not.

[edit] Types of Vandalism

Vandalism is any deliberate and malicious change made to an article that is intentionally used to take away from the integrity and reliablility of Wikipedia. Because vandalism is such a general idea, it has been broken down into several categories.

Blanking
Blanking is the removal of all or large parts of a page without first gaining consensus. However, if the parts of the article that were removed were themselves vandalism or meaningless nonsense, then deleting them is not vandalism. It is very important to remember that sometimes large removals are allowed by consensus, or are useless, and that these should not be reverted. Remember that some new users will blank pages as a test, or think that what they are doing is right. Therefore, assume good faith with these users, and give them a simple-to-understand, personal message; not a warning.
Excessive lengthening
Adding huge amounts of meaningless content to a page.
Spam (see
Wikipedia:Spam)
Adding external links to non-notable or otherwise irrelevant websites to an article's text (perhaps advertising one's own website) after having been warned about it is vandalism.
Vandalbots (see
m:Vandalbot)
A script or robot that vandalizes or spams hundreds or thousands of articles.
Silly vandalism
Adding profanity, random characters, or other nonsense to pages or creating nonsense pages that would never be put in an encyclopedia. Please note that the addition of random characters to pages is a common way that new users test edit and may not be intentionally malicious.
Sneaky vandalism
Hard-to-spot vandalism like a minor change of a date, hiding vandalism by making two bad edits and reverting one of them, reverting good edits, or saying "revert vandalism" in an edit summary to further mask vandalism.
Userspace vandalism
Vandalizing a user's userpage or user talk page with personal attacks, profanity, etc.
Image vandalism
Uploading or adding explicit or otherwise offensive images to articles. Understand though, that Wikipedia is not censored for minors, and that images that might be inappropriate can still be used correctly in certain articles.
Tag Abuse
Misusing {{Afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}, or any other tags on articles where they don't belong. This also includes the removal of tags without first reaching consensus.
Page-move vandalism
Moving, or renaming pages to inappropriate or disruptive names. Since only registered users that have been editing for more than four days can do this, it is a very serious offense.
Link vandalism
Changing internal or external links so that they go to shock sites or irrelevant, disruptive pages.
Avoidant vandalism
Removing certain tags, such as deletion tags, to avoid having ones article protected, deleted, etc. Please note that some users might not understand the deletion process, and might remove these tags to save their article. If this is the case, please don't bite them.
Modifying users' comments
Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged.
Discussion page vandalism
Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion.
Repeated uploading of copyrighted material
Uploading or using material on Wikipedia in ways which violate Wikipedia's copyright policies after having been warned is vandalism. Because users may be unaware that the information is copyrighted, or of Wikipedia policies on how such material may and may not be used, such action only becomes vandalism if it continues after the copyrighted nature of the material and relevant policy restricting its use have been communicated to the user.
Malicious account creation
Creating accounts with usernames that contain deliberately offensive or disruptive terms is considered vandalism, whether the account is used or not. For Wikipedia's policy on what is considered inappropriate for a username, see Wikipedia:Username policy. See also Wikipedia:Sock puppet.
Edit summary vandalism
Making offensive edit summaries in an attempt to leave a mark that cannot be easily expunged from the record. Often combined with malicious account creation.
Hidden vandalism
Any form of vandalism that makes use of embedded text, which is not visible to the final rendering of the article but visible during editing.

[edit] What is not Vandalism

There are some things that aren't vandalism, and you need to know them so that you can avoid improperly reverting a user.

Tests by experimenting users
New users who discover the "edit this page" button sometimes want to experience editing a page and may add something unhelpful to a page (e.g., a few random characters) as a test. Such edits are not done in bad faith and are therefore not vandalism. Rather than be warned for vandalism, these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the sandbox (e.g., using the test template message) where they can continue to make test edits without being unintentionally disruptive. If a user has made a test edit and then reverted it, consider placing the message {{test-self}} on their talk page.
Using incorrect wiki markup and manual of style
Inexperienced users often are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's formatting and grammatical standards (e.g. how to create internal and/or external links, when certain words should be bolded or italicized, etc.) Rather than label such users as vandals, just explain to them what our standard style is on the issue at hand - perhaps pointing them towards our documentation at Wikipedia:How to edit a page, and the like.
NPOV violations
The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all affected by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. Though inappropriate, this is not vandalism in itself unless persisted in after being warned.
Making bold edits
Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to pages in order to improve them - most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you've written removed or substantially rewritten can be frustrating, simply making edits that noticeably alter the text or content of a pages should not be immediately labeled vandalism.
Unintentional misinformation
Sometimes a user will add content to an article that is factually inaccurate, but in the belief that it is accurate. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and improve it rather than vandalize. If you believe inaccurate information has been added to an article in good faith, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it.
Unintentional nonsense
While intentionally adding nonsense to pages is a form of vandalism, sometimes honest editors may not have expressed themselves correctly (there may be an error in the syntax, particularly for Wikipedians who use English as a second language). Also, sometimes connection errors or edit conflict unintentionally produce the appearance of nonsense or malicious edits. In either case, assume good faith.
Stubbornness
Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such.
Harassment or personal attacks
We have a clear policy on Wikipedia of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is not allowed. While some forms of harassment are also clear cases of vandalism, such as user page vandalism, or inserting a personal attack into an article, harassment in itself is not considered "vandalism" and should be handled differently.
Unilateral policy/guideline alteration
While editors are encouraged to be bold, making edits to Wikipedia policy pages (such as this one), proposed policy pages, guideline pages, etc. should require some knowledge of the consensus on that issue. If people misjudge consensus, this is not vandalism. Making broad changes without prior discussion is not, however, a productive approach, and continuing to do so after having been warned may warrant a block.

This above was the first part of this lesson. When you are finished and understand it, we can move on to the second phase of this subject. Happy editing, Arky ¡Hablar! 16:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Okay. I am ready to continue. But please now add all information to User talk:Crassic/Adoption. :) I will remove this once you add info to that page. Crassic(talk) 22:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll remember. Next lesson coming up soon! Arky ¡Hablar! 02:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Namespace

The Wikipedia namespace is made up of any page with the Wikipedia: or WP: prefix, for example: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or WP:IAR. It is often considered the "background" side of the project, and is vital to Wikipedia. There are some important areas in that side of Wikipedia that all editors should edit in.

[edit] RFA (Requests for adminship)

As you already know, the RFA page is for the community to discuss whether or not a given user should be given adminship.

[edit] What to do there

Vote
There are three ways you can vote in an RfA. They are Support, Neutral, and Oppose, with regards to how well you think the candidate will better Wikipedia with their new abilities. No matter what your vote is, make sure you justify it. Don't just say "Support" ~~~~. Remember that RfA is a discussion, and not a vote.
Debate votes
If you think a user has supported or opposed incorrectly, be sure to say exactly why you think they should change their vote. However, when doing this, be sure to stay civil and refrain from personal attacks.

[edit] XFD (Anything for Deletion)

See also: Wikipedia:Deletion process

XfD is a grouping of all deletion discussions for all pages. It covers AfD (Articles for deletion), MfD (Miscellany, such as user pages, WikiProjects, etc. for deletion), TfD (Templates for deletion), CfD (Categories for Discussion), RfD (Redirects for discussion), UCfD (User Categories, or categories that only contain userpages for deletion), SfD (Stub types, or categories stubs are sorted into for deletion), IfD (Images and media for deletion), and DRV (Deletion review, for the undeletion of previously deleted pages, or for the deletion of pages that were kept in deletion discussions).

[edit] What to do there

Vote
For all of the above mentioned pages except Deletion review, you can Support and Oppose deletion. For AfD, you can vote Redirect to <pagename> to redirect the article somewhere else, and for MfD, you can vote Mark historical for WikiProjects that are useful for historical information, but are inactive (for example: Wikipedia:Esperanza). In Deletion review, you can Endorse Deletion, Endorse Undeletion, and Endorse deletion and salt (delete the article and prevent it from being recreated).
Discuss
If you think a vote is incorrect, be sure to discuss it there. However, try to be civil.

[edit] RFC (Request for comment)

RfC is a place where comment is, well, requested, on several different things. The things you can comment on there are inappropriate usernames, user conduct, policies and conventions, and articles.

[edit] What to do there

Inappropriate usernames
Here, you can vote to Block a username, to Direct to WP:CHU to change the user's username, or Allow in circumstances where there appears to be nothing wrong with it.
User conduct
This one's my favorite :) Here, you can look at the description of any debate or conduct issue. Be sure to read the whole debate and all evidence presented before commenting. Once you've formed an opinion about the dispute, write your "outside view" on the issue like this, under the ==Outside View== header:
=== Outside view by [[User:Crassic|Crassic]] ===
<opinion goes here>

; Users who endorse this summary:
# ~~~~
Also, if you see any other outside view you agree with, be sure to endorse it by adding your signature under it's "Users who endorse this summary" mini-header.
Policies and conventions/Articles
Here, just go to the main RFC page, and scroll down to either "Policies and conventions" or "Articles". Then, click on what kind of debate you want to go to (a box with the different kinds of debates is on the right). Once you are there, look at the bulleted list of all the debates. Choose one that sounds interesting for you, and click on it. Then, check out all the debate that's been going on there on that page before commenting, and join in by beginning to debate a certain issue expressed there, or start your own issue.
Hopefully that helped you out. If you need me to talk about any more of the above sections in greater detail, just ask. Also, don't forget to tell me when you're finished :) Happy editing, Arky ¡Hablar! 01:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Okay, Arky. I do believe I am ready to continue. Crassic(talk) 12:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin stuff

See also: Wikipedia:Administrator's reading list

As you noted that you wanted to be an administrator, Crassic, I've gathered up a good deal of information regarding the subject. Enjoy!

[edit] Blocking and Banning

[edit] Blocks

See also: Wikipedia:Blocking policy

A block is a way for an administrator to stop someone, through the magic of technology, from editing. They are used to prevent damage to Wikipedia, and are not punishments.

[edit] Reasons for blocking

Protection of information
  • persistently making personal attacks;
  • making personal, professional or legal threats (including outside the Wikipedia site);
  • performing actions that place users in danger;
  • disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate);
  • persistently violating copyrights;
  • accounts that appear to have been compromised, as an emergency measure.
Disruption
Open or anonymous proxies
Enforcing bans

A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent.

Blocks may be used to enforce bans. Such blocks are based on the particular terms of the ban. Except for partial bans, banned users are customarily blocked for the duration of the ban.

Evasion of blocks

An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block. User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may also be blocked.

[edit] Banning

See also: Wikipedia:Banning policy

A ban is different than a block. While a block is a technical revocation of the ability to edit, a ban is a formal revocation of those rights, and does not technically prevent a user from editing. For this reason, a ban is usually accompanied by a block.

[edit] Decision to ban

The decision to ban a user can arise from various sources:

  1. The Wikipedia community, making decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. If no administrator is willing to unblock a user, and the user has been blocked after due consideration by the community, the user can be considered banned, usually through the Community sanction noticeboard
  2. The Arbitration Committee can use a ban as a remedy following a request for arbitration. In the past these bans have nearly always been of limited duration, with a maximum of one year.
  3. The Arbitration Committee may delegate the authority to ban a user. In the past it has done so using two mechanisms: Probation and Mentorship.
  4. Jimbo Wales retains the authority to ban users.
  5. The Wikimedia Foundation has the authority to ban users, though it has not often exercised this authority on the English Wikipedia.

[edit] Appeals process

Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. Banned users should not create sockpuppets to file an appeal. Rather, they should contact a member of the committee or an Arbitration clerk by email and ask that a request be filed on their behalf. Generally speaking, the banned user will make the request on his or her talk page, which will be copied to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration by a clerk. In some cases, a banned user may be unblocked for the purpose of filing an appeal. In such cases, editing of unrelated pages is grounds for immediate re-blocking.

Users who have been banned indefinitely by the Arbitration Committee may appeal to the Committee after one year.

While any arbitration decision may be nominally appealed to Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation, historically, neither has intervened.

That's the first part of this lesson, and I'll continue once you're finished. Cheers, and happy editing, ARkY // ¡HaBLaR! 00:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Due to no school today, I had a good chance to read through all of this info. :) Continue when able. Crassic(talk) 00:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection and deletion

[edit] Protection

See also: Wikipedia:Protection policy

An administrator can protect a page, which means they can prevent certain users from editing it.

[edit] Full protection
  • Indefinite, or with no deadline, protection is used for
    • High visibility pages such as the Main Page to prevent vandalism. This includes templates transcluded to these pages.
    • The site's logo, press releases, and key copyright and license pages, for legal reasons. Administrators should not make significant changes to these pages without prior discussion.
    • Certain "system administration" pages, including many editorial, deletion and stub templates, and the entire MediaWiki namespace. These are pages that need rarely be changed, and that because of widespread usage can cause large-scale disruption if vandalized, or modified ill-advisedly. Again, administrators should not make significant changes to these pages without prior discussion.
    • Pages deleted by consensus that are repeatedly recreated. These are listed in either Category:Protected deleted pages or Wikipedia:Protected titles. Requests to overturn such a deletion should be made through the deletion review process.
    • Personal css and js pages like User:Example/monobook.css or User:Example/cologneblue.js are automatically fully protected by the MediaWiki software. Only the account associated with these pages and administrators are able to edit them.
  • Temporary full protections are used for:
    • Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an edit war.
    • A history-only review of the article during some discussions on deletion review.
    • Preventing abuse of the {{unblock}} template or other disruptions by a blocked user on their user talk page.

Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in. Protection during an edit war is not an endorsement of the current version. Editors should not ask for a specific version of a page to be protected or, if it has already been protected, reverted to a different version. Instead, editors should attempt to resolve the dispute on the related talk page. See also m:The Wrong Version.

During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people. Administrators should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute. However, this should only be done with great caution, and administrators doing so should indicate this on the article's talk page.

[edit] Semi-protection
  • Indefinite semi-protection may be used for:
    • Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism, such as George W. Bush.[1]
    • Biographies subject to vandalism and/or POV-pushing that are not widely watchlisted.
    • User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user.
    • Policy pages, on a case-by-case basis
  • Temporary semi-protection may be used for:
    • Preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, such as a high rate of vandalism from a wide range of anonymous IP addresses.
    • Article talk pages that are being disrupted; this should be used sparingly because it prevents new users and anons from being part of discussions.
  • Semi-protection should not be used:
    • As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred.
    • In a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users.
    • With the sole purpose of prohibiting editing by anonymous users. Protection should be used only to prevent continuing disruption.

[edit] Move protection

Fully protected pages are by default also move protected. If a protected page is moved by an administrator, the page will be protected at the new location, and the redirect will be unprotected at the page's original location.

The same restrictions that apply to full protection during a dispute also apply to move protection during a dispute (for example, administrators should avoid favoring one name over another, and protection is not an endorsement of the current name).

New accounts cannot move any pages, as described at Wikipedia:User access levels.

[edit] Cascading protection (this one's a doosie)
  • Cascading protection is used
    • On very high visibility pages such as the Main Page.
    • As a new system for dealing with deleted pages that get repeatedly recreated.

Administrators may choose to use a cascade protected userpage to protect a redlink following the policy on full protection. It is recommended, that these lists be noted on Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin unless the list is obviously being maintained for privacy or decency reasons.

Cascading protection automatically fully protects any page (e.g., template or image) that is currently transcluded onto the protected page to prevent vandalism.

[edit] Deletion

See also: Wikipedia:Deletion policy

Administrators can delete, or remove pages from the encyclopedia.

[edit] Copyright violations

For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot host content that is in violation of copyright.

  • Where to find them: Wikipedia:Copyright problems
  • How to do this: For images, add the description page and add {{imagevio}} to the top. For other pages, edit the page to replace its entire content with {{copyvio|url=address of copied material}}. For blatant, whole-page copyright violation, you can simply tag it for speedy deletion with {{db-copyvio|url=...}} after checking that there are no non-copyvio versions in the page history.
  • If you disagree: Try to contact the authors of the text or image and see if they are willing to release their work (1) under the GFDL, or (2) into the public domain. Permission to use a work "on Wikipedia only" or "for non-commercial use only" isn't enough, as it is incompatible with our license.
  • Renominations: Recreations of copyrighted content are speedily deleted, as below. It is disruptive to persist in recreating such content.

[edit] Speedy deletion

Pages can be deleted without any discussion if they meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Pages on proposed deletion or deletion discussion (see below) are still subject to speedy deletion, which overrides the other process.

  • Where to find them: A list of all pages flagged for speedy deletion can be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.
  • How to do this: Administrators can delete such pages on sight, even if contested as below. Other editors can request speedy deletion by editing the relevant page to add a speedy deletion template to the top of the page.
  • If you disagree: Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page. If a page you created is tagged for speedy deletion, you may add the {{hangon}} tag, and either improve the page or explain your reasoning on the relevant talk page. The tag exists to give you some extra time; the page may still be deleted if it meets the speedy deletion criteria. If a page has been speedily deleted and there is disagreement over whether or not it should have been, this is discussed at deletion review, described below.
  • Renominations: Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below.

[edit] Proposed deletion

An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion. These pages can be deleted by any administrator if, after five days, nobody objects to the proposed deletion. Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again. This process only applies to pages in the Article, User, and User Talk namespaces.

  • Where to find them: A list of all pages flagged for proposed deletion can be found in Category:Proposed deletion, as well as in an automatically generated summary table.
  • How to do this: Edit the page to add the following text to the top: {{subst:prod|reason}}, writing your reasoning in the "reason" field.
  • If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page.
  • Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again. If an editor still feels the page ought to be deleted, a deletion discussion should be used, as indicated below.

[edit] Deletion discussion

Pages that do not fall in the above three categories may be deleted after community discussion at one of the deletion debates, the results of which may be reviewed at deletion review (see below). This includes contested speedy or proposed deletions. Here, editors who wish to participate can give their opinion on what should be done with the page.

These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate.

Because the article deletion process sees a lot of traffic, a nomination for an article that gets little response after five days can be relisted. This does not apply to the other processes.

It is considered inappropriate to ask people outside of Wikipedia to come to the debate in order to sway its outcome. Such comments may be ignored. They are not removed, but may be tagged with {{spa}}, noting that a user "has made few or no other edits". In extreme cases, a deletion debate can be semi-protected.

It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution.

  • Where to find them: There are separate processes for articles, categories, images and media, redirects, templates, stub templates and categories, user categories, and everything else.
  • How to do this: Follow the instructions at the top of the relevant process page.
  • If you disagree: Go to the relevant process page and explain why you disagree. Do not remove the tag from the page. For more information on this process, read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.
  • Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.

[edit] Deletion review

If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately. In such a case, the admin who deleted the page should be informed. However, such undeletions without gaining consensus may be viewed as disruptive, so they should be undertaken with care.

If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content (this applies to most speedy deletions) and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review. It is especially wasteful to go to deletion review over an unsourced stub when the alternative of creating a sourced article is available.

The deletion review process is not decided solely by head count. The review normally lasts for five days, sometimes extended for up to ten if the outcome is unclear.

Overturned deletions may go to a deletion discussion if someone still wishes to delete and chooses to nominate.

  • Where to find them: Wikipedia:Deletion review
  • How to do this: Follow the instructions at the top of the page.
  • If you disagree: Go to the review page and explain why you disagree.
  • Renominations: As with deletion discussions, a certain amount of time should pass between repeated requests for deletion review, and these requests should be carefully considered in light of policy. Renominations that lack new arguments or new evidence are likely to be closed quickly.
Okay, that's it! Your final lesson! I'd bet you can't wait for your <evil grin>final exam test thing</evil grin>! Cheers, ( arky ) 23:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I just recently got a chance to read this info. So whenever you decide you want to give me the "test", go right ahead. :) tosh²(talk) 21:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your test cooperative activity :)

Okay, Crassic. Time for the final section of your curriculum. Your "test" consists of three parts. It is a test of your ability to interact with others and provide thorough, well thought out opinions :)

RfA

Vote in three RfAs, and list the "diffs" of your votes from the page's history below.

  1. Davewild RfA (diff)
  2. east718 RfA (diff)
  3. Kwsn 2 RfA (diff)
RFCC

Provide an "outside view" in one Request for Comment on user conduct, listing the "diff" below.

  1. Camptown RFCC (diff)
Article writing

Now for the fun part :) Here, you will write an article about a topic that interests you, and that has a decent amount of information about it. Your first draft of the article should rate about "start class" on the generic quality scale. Then, we will work together to take it up to "B class"

  1. [name of article]

And that's it! You've been a great adoptee, and now you can be a great editor! Cheers, ( arky ) 19:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for everything. :) Just to give you a "heads up," I'll be leaving on November 9th for Hawaii and might not be back until around the ... 19th? Around that time. Just letting you know in advance in case I don't get around to finishing all of this up in the next week or two. tosh²(talk) 02:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I was actually mistaken about the date I get back. I won't actually get home until the 20th, then I'll have a lot of make up work for school to do during Thanksgiving. So it will really be somewhere around the 26th. tosh²(talk) 11:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Have fun in Hawai`i, Crassic :) ( arky ) 02:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Have fun in Hawai`i, Crassic :) ( arky ) 02:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've been swamped with trying to get everything together for my vacation ... trip with the Navy. I'll be gone for around two weeks as I've said. I'll attempt to get on the rest of this as soon as possible. :) tosh²(talk) 23:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry; there's no deadline. Have fun with the Navy =P ( arky ) 22:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am back, but I don't know how much I will be able to use the internet anytime soon due to me having quite a bit of make-up work for school. :( So once again, I will get to the rest of this as soon as I can. :) tosh²(talk) 00:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)