User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Ghorpaapi

Hello Ghorpaapi, and welcome to your adoption center. Jackson Peebles is going to adopt you guiding you through the course. Using the American university model, consider them "teaching assistants" and consider me the "professor"...in other words, I will be around and will peek in to make sure it's going all right, but most of your interaction will be with Jackson and JHUbal. Their roles are as follows:
 * Jackson: Grading tests
 * JHUbal27: Administrative tasks (e.g., posting lessons and tests, archiving, assisting Jackson in grading tests if needed)
 * Go Phightins!: Helping out if needed and explaining concepts that are of difficulty, serving as a resource via email if anything is going wrong (for Ghorpaapi, Jackson, or JHUbal)

Once Jackson and JHUbal27 have found this page, please sign below, and then notify Ghorpaapi. Thank you all for your interest, and hopefully this will work as fruitfully as it has in the past. Respectfully yours, Go   Phightins  !  23:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Signatures here:
 * Ghorpaapi-Ghorpaapi (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Jackson Peebles- Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * JHUbal27- JHU  bal  27  00:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Lesson one
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to summarize why we're here.
 * 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.

How articles should be written
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
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 while "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, it probably would not be authoritative on the Boeing 737.

A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. Generally, self-published sources aren't considered reliable. 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?
Any questions? If not, I will post the test. JHU bal  27  00:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Question:- Ghorpaapi (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) *Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on. My first question is regarding the second pillar . When we talk about neutrality. For eg: there are two different products or say apples, one is sour and one is sweet .A contributor to wiki mentions the properties of both with a neutral point of view. Nextly what supposedly happens is that 20 people going through the article have a favour for sweet apples and never prefer the sour ones. Finally the article which describes two same things with different properties turns up to be a biased towards the side supported by majority. What would you like to comment in this particular situation?
 * Objective reporting of facts relying on reliable sources is not only not a violation, but is encouraged...that's what we want. The article should say, x brand apples are sweet, whereas y brand apples are sour, (not necessarily that writing as to be honest that's brutal, but that is the gist of what we're getting at). Good question! Go   Phightins  !  19:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Gop!
 * Question 2: When we talk about reliable sources there are a thousands websites which have contents which cannot be accessed before we actually log in or sign up for it, to verify such a source what would you suggest a beginner ? Ghorpaapi (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a tough one. First and foremost, assume good faith. Especially when established contributors are writing, you can usually trust that even if their sources are behind a paywall, that they are accurate. Though we trust them, it is always good to, in the enduring wisdom of Ronald Reagan, Trust but verify. Ask them if the source is behind a paywall; perhaps they can email you a PDF. Ask another editor who has access. See if a free trial is available. For example, I have one-year subscriptions to HighBeam Research and ESPN Insider right now; the former is displayed on my user page and I have made the latter known to potentially interested editors. We're a community of over 17 million accounts (since inception, granted only maybe 20,000 have made recent edits); chances are someone can help.

Go  Phightins  !  19:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. That is the same direction I had my train of thought runnning towards. :) I would like to appear for the test. Ghorpaapi (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, on my new phone, I do not have a qwerty keyboard. This means I cannot type or do anything! So i cannot post the test and can barely edit. I will give Jackson instructions. Sorry but i cannot be around, gotta get used to it. Excuse me for my typos. JHU  bal  27
 * I took care of it, I think. Please let me know if I need to reformat, but I posted the fir JHU  bal  27  00:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)st test and put up the grade log.  Good luck with the new phone, JHUbal27!  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yay! I figured out how to copy and paste. Scrolling is annoying. I used to have the Samsung Intercept, which was great for wikipedia because of the symbols on the keyboard. Now i have a samsung galaxy reverb, which is awesome but hard for editing wikipedia. JHU  bal  27  00:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Test
Here is the test. You have up to one week to complete it once I've posted it, but it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes maximum to complete. I'm looking for thoughtfulness in your answers, and reserve the right to post follow-up questions should your answer be ambiguous or not on the right track. Good luck, and here we go:

1.) Q- You have heard from a friend that Mitt Romney has been appointed the chancellor of Harvard University. Can you add this to Romney's (or Harvard's) article? Why? A- No. The reasons I would not add it before conforming it myself :
 * 1) He/She might me biased towards or against Romney as He/She might mention this to me as an opinion and not a fact.
 * 2) He/She isn't a reliable source when it comes to adding material just on the basis of his on her comments on wikipedia article for Romney.
 * 3) He/She might be playing a prank on me . (lol)
 * ✅ 5/5 Good. You need a reliable source.

2.) Q - The Daily Telegraph 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- Tough one ! I will not include it on the newspapers article as an example immediately but search for other reliable sources instead which mention The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon which was considered to be offensive and racist. Why I will choose the above process---> in order to maintain neutrality ; let us take an example, say, I am a mexican guy and The Daily Telegraph publishes the cartoon of some mexican gangs involved in drugs in Los Angeles slums or, lets consider another example, I am an American wife and my husband is mexican. Neutrality will meet the dead end sign immediately in those two scenarios. On the racism article I will mention it because there it will be an another example addition on the article space. Furthermore, for a topic like racism the more number of opinions and examples we have the better the people will try to understand it.
 * ✅ 4/5 Correct overall and in most of the explanation. I'd also add that, in order to include anything on racism in The Daily Telegraph's article, there would have to be numerous incidents of it.

3.) Q- You find a reliable article that says Americans are more likely to get diabetes than British people and British people are more likely to get cancer than Americans. You find another reliable article that says Americans are Capitalists and British people are Socialists. Can you include information that says Capitalists are more likely to get diabetes and socialists are more likely to get cancer anywhere on Wikipedia?

A- NOOOOOOOO ! Its just another example of SET THEORY which I learned in mathematics when I was in High School, I recall. I will not include any such information. My Logical Algorithm doesn't approve of it. A similar situation will be (a) if the most of the people in Japan eat rice with chopsticks and most of the people in India eat rice with hands. (b) if most of the people in Japan are expert in Karate and most of the people in India are expert in Yoga. It doesnt leads to a conclusion that most of the people who can eat rice with chopsticks are expert in karate and most of the people who eat rice with hands are expert in Yoga.
 * ✅ 3/5 Correct in principle. The rational is due to WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, though.

4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?

A- No ! I will not. As FOX News has been in news considering biased opinions ( as every second news channel) and when it comes to MSNBC my answer is NO. Information on Sarah Palin when mentioned by FOX NEWS could be included in the article but not as a reliable source as for Entertainment and TRPs news channels have some special programs to expose or mention something spicy about the celebrities which makes it against neutrality. Personally I will consider this situation against assuming good faith. Sarah Palin on the other hand is a living person where the biographies of the living persons comes into play, and henceforth the answer will be a big NO.
 * ✅ 5/5 Correct. Sarah Palin definitely benefits from BLP policies.  There's a COI between FOX an NBC and also between FOX and Sarah Palin, though for different reasons.

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

A-NO! As its a self published source and no one else with a neutral point of view has a control over it I won't consider the official Twitter page a reliable source. They will be boasting and using flashy and advertising language like expected. However there are exceptions, in case Ben and Jerry are going to launch a new product, or they mention collaboration with some other firms or have a new brand ambassador(a celebrity on contract for advertisements),also if the information published is in good faith and seems to be neutral and unbiased.
 * ✅ 5/5 Correct. Looks very similar to GP's explanation on another adoption page, so good work.

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

A- A partial YES ! A forum is always the treasure of public opinions which conclude a majority and which make opinions into facts. When 20 people in the forum out of 24 are speaking about developing countries in the forum it will conclude to a fact that they are talking about third world countries perhaps. But an individual opinion from one of those forums wont have the right to be included on wiki, if only the author is an expert and has already done significant work in the specific field.
 * ✅ 3/5 While I agree with your sentiment about forums being important and the forum official's statement represents is a better assimilation of facts than individuals, he is still not considered a reliable source because of WP:SELFSOURCE.

7.) Q- Would you object to the "about us" section on say Burger King's website being used as a citation in its article? (Hint: see WP:SELFSOURCE)

A- Thank you for the Hint ! Answering this question is really like walking on a naked sword. In the beginning I will not; as I know it will be immediately considered for COPYVIO infringement. Regarding my present day knowledge about wiki policies, I will start/post a discussion on the talk page of the burger king article as I am not sure about it. I will not object; provided its neutral and factual.
 * ✅ 5/5 Great answer! They are reliable as a source about themselves only an only when neutral and factual, as you mentioned.  I'm not sure what you were getting at about COPYVIO infringements, but bringing something up on a talk page is always a good way to deal with things that don't necessarily require immediate attention and is an excellent way to get community input.

8.) 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- No ! I have sufficient sources to prove it that its blue. That one editor might be on mushrooms or drugs or Meth. If he thinks it is bronze it is opinion but it doesn't change the fact. Done.
 * 4/5 Good. I'd urge you to be careful of WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS when dealing with the editor, though!   I'll also point you to WP:NOTBLUE for some interesting reading.  As long as you use WP:COMMONSENSE, you'll be okay with issues such as these.


 * In case, I have to explain any answer a bit more please mention it . I will be glad to have it observed or corrected or approved by my mentors. Thank you . Ghorpaapi (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of your answers require clarification, unless you'd like to comment on what yo menat in your reference to COPYVIOs in #7, though I gave you full credit for that one, already. I think we're ready to move on to the second lesson! Total score 34/40 (85%) --Jackson Peebles (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Lesson two
You've successfully completed the first lesson. I'll warn you, that was the easiest one. Now, let's move on to some bigger and better things, shall we? Lesson 2 is below:

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.
 * 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.


 * 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.

Assuming good faith is one of the most important points of Wikipedia (as you may have noticed by my numerous mentions). The test will focus primarily on assuming good faith, threading, and on more assuming good faith. Do you have any questions? If not, let me know, and I will post the test. Thanks. Go  Phightins  !  and Jackson Peebles (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank for the corrections and the feedback in the first test. It went worse than I thought because the questions were quite simple and in three months I came to know the basics quite well. But I am satisfied with the results.
 * I'm glad! If you have any questions about previous units, please never hesitate to ask; the entire objective is to learn!  I'm going to do my best to answer your questions on this lesson, and GP will come by and make corrections/additions if necessary, I'm sure.  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Talking about the second lesson yes I have some detailed questions.
 * - Going through the study material and the further links mentioned on WP:AGF, I am really confused and accept this fact that, it is really a thin line differentiating if the editors contribution has been made in good faith or vice versa. Now to my question, there are people(wiki contributors) who admit their mistakes or/and errors and there are people who do not.When mentioning the AGF policy to an editor shouldn't it be worthy discussing with another experiences editor is there a platform or group to discuss it?
 * You can always feel free to ask one of us while you're getting used to when/when not to assume good faith. However, other general groups that may be helpful are the #wikipedia-en channel on Wikipedia IRC and, as is usually the case, the teahouse.


 * -simultaneously judging an editor's edit/contribution depends on one's personal opinion, which is Human and therefore I can imagine it is not an easy task to guess or determine if an edit has been made in good faith. Do you guys yourselves, use any basic three to nine thumb-rules to differentiate an AGF edit ?
 * As a general rule, though, I usually assume good faith unless there is swearing, patent nonsense, personal attacks, or similar content (of if the user has a history of bad behavior, as evidenced in their talk pages). Better safe than sorry.  Of course, I've also accidentally assumed bad faith when, in fact, it was good faith, and I think that's bound to happen to any editor, however careful you are.  Just learn from experience, apologize, and move on.


 * -Vandalism is a genuine example of bad faith. What is NOT bad faith is somewhat clear with those examples as well. So before mentioning/commenting on someones edit/contribution of being in bad faith there are a numerous possibilities that the editor might be newbie/ignorant exactly like me. Being careful, polite and welcoming is what the wiki policy says which might not be practical everytime. So considering a situation involving an edit war or dispute between two editors. The talk page is already full with name calling editors. Is there any particular group of admins or project members who take care of cases involving edit wars and disputes? To whom a contributor can appeal to in case of AGF conflict?
 * I'm not sure if you've seen WP:BITE, but it may answer a it of your question. I respectfully disagree with you, though; I think that it is possible to be careful, polite, and welcoming in nearly every instance.  Even if someone calls you a horrible name, you can use the template message in Twinkle about personal attacks.  It is by no means kind, but it is careful, polite, and links to policies, which I would say is welcoming.  When it comes down to bad situations, sometimes you just need to not feed the trolls (definitely read that one) or have an administrator block someone.  I've seen fantastic, experienced editors get blocked temporarily for a silly edit war.  Just take time to cool down, seek a third opinion or request for comments, and use template messages where applicable.


 * - My fourth and last question (perhaps) :D, an editor based on the personal experiences contrbutes that XYZ people are racists to the XYZ country's/race's article page. Another editor who belongs to this group removes it considering vandalism. The former editor might be able to prove it from a reliable source from a BBC survey while the latter considers it as a direct attack on the community. Who has not assumed good faith in this situation ? or who stands on the wiki policy follower side ? Ghorpaapi (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. It is unfair to generalize and say that a group of people are racists unless they are, by definition, racist (e.g. white supremacists).  You can, however, state that "according to a BBC poll, citizens of XYZ generally exhibit unusually high levels of racism towards group A" in a relevant section, if it contributes positively to the article and is relevant.  I don't think that, if a statement is cited properly with a reliable source and there doesn't appear to be an agenda behind such a post the former editor should have been accused of vandalism, though.  I hope this answers the question.  If not or if you would like follow-up, please feel free to ask; otherwise, let me know if you're ready for the test!  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Test
Thank you for the answers Jackson, gradually I am exploring how deep and vast wiki policies are getting. A lot to remember. I believe,I am ready for the test. Ghorpaapi (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. There are a lot of policies, but the five pillars are the big ones.  Everything else is based off of those.  No worries if you forget on occasion; taking this course puts you way ahead of most new editors and is an indication of good intentions.  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Without further adieu, here is the test:

1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith.
 * A- Assuming good faith will include the following point in the order of assumptions and succession:-

Be Civil, Be Calm, Be Honest, Be Mentoring, Be Good, Do Good and Make Others Good by showing wiki-motives and humbleness. 2/5 Okay - I liked your answer of what good faith is in the first bullet, but that does not answer what 'assuming' good faith is. The second bullet is a little more what I wanted. The third bullet has nothing to do with assuming good faith, though it's a good practice. I would've liked to see some more specificity as to when you assume good faith and when you don't... so, as a follow-up question:
 * everyone is doing/editing/contributing honestly to wikipedia.
 * in case a mistake has occured it is unintentional and unknown to the user/contributor for his action.
 * in case of an edit war, being humble and polite and asking for experts and third opinion to take a look into matter and keep calm.
 * 1.)b. Q-What are some specific examples of when you should not assume good faith?
 * A- I guess, I cannot recall any instance where I should not assume good faith. Or any example where not to ::assume good faith. Or you mean that I should mention some examples where good faith is not being assumed?
 * Assuming good faith will refer to that any contribution or editing made on wikipedia, doesnt associate itself with any bad intentions from a user. Each and every edit, submission, addition and improvement by each and every user is done with no intention to harm the policies of wikipedia.


 * Every editor is trying to contribute for wikipedias improvement is assuming good faith. The editors and users cannot be treated as vandals or trolls unless they are proven Guilty.
 * This last sentence is what I was looking for. Good job.

2.) Q- Explain how you would deal with this scenario using specifics: You are working in New Page Patrol and come across a new page that, though it's content is fine, has a few minor formatting issues. The page is three minutes old. You fix the format issues on the page. A few minutes later, you get a nasty note on your talk page which states that you caused the new editor, who created the page, an edit conflict by performing your few minor corrections. He was unaware of how to correct an edit conflict, and therefore lost everything he was trying to do. He even goes so far as to start an AN/I discussion about how you're incompetent and should butt out of his editing. What specific steps would you take? Disclaimer: This is based on a true story. Note: A similar question will be asked once we get to the dispute resolution question, but simply based on assuming good faith, I want to here how you'd approach this scenario.
 * A- No problem. He is a new user. I will ask him to feel free and express his opinions on AN/I. Simultaneously I am going to contact the you or GoP or JHubal27, or Yunshui or any other admin/expert whom I know here on wiki and explain the situation politely. I will ask the new editor to relax and do not worry about what has happened and apologise for his first encounter on wikipedia with an edit conflict and explain him how things work here. I will ask him to ask me any kind of questions/doubts he has regarding his edit or any other question on wikipedia, and/or if he needs my help, he should not hesitate to contact me.

✅ 5/5 Excellent - I love everything about that answer. If you felt comfortable dealing with it yourself, that'd be cool, too, but if you want help the first few times, that sounds like a great plan. A bit of apology goes a long way, especially when accompanied by an explanation of how things work.

3.) Have a look at the conversation below: Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In

3a.) Position A?
 * A-#|Rod's Mate

✅ 2.5/2.5 Good. 3b.) Position B?
 * A-#|Rod

✅ 2.5/2.5 Good. I think you've got this down. Actually, I think you did before, but we needed to make sure! 3c.) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
 * A- No. He might be bad in one field but can be a master of disaster(positive) in some other fields. He may end up in making up a BOT for wiki with his skills or may contribute to wiki in other ways. The user might be skilled in programming languages, or might be a math genius.

✅ 5/5? Absolutely correct. We assume good faith. Also, he's helping (we assume)... great answer! Done. Ghorpaapi (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Total Score: 17/20 = 85% Great work! If you answer the above follow-up question, I'll give you up to half-credit back, though you passed, anyhow! If you'd prefer to just move on, please just reply to this message and let me know so that I can post the next message! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

When you're finished, we'll move on to a really fun topic, vandalism. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback and grading Jackson ! I am in favor of moving to the next topic . Thank you . Ghorpaapi (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. See below!

Lesson three
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: 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.
 * (diff) (hist) . . Shigeru Miyamoto‎; 14:32 . . (+28) . .201.152.102.192 (Talk) (→ Competition with Sony and Microsoft )
 * 1) A "diff" is the difference between two revisions. Wikipedia has a special feature that allows you to compare revisions to see exactly what was changed. This is particularly useful when on vandal patrol, as this is the best thing available to tell you if the edit was or was not vandalism. Clicking on the link above will only take you to the help page on diffs, unfortunately, however an actual diff link will bring you to a screen that looks like this one, an actual diff of another article. Content removed appears in red text in a yellow box on the left; content added appears in red text in a green box on the right.
 * 2) The "hist" link will bring you to the page's history. You can click on the "hist" link above to get to the help page for this feature. A page's history lists all edits ever made to a page, something which is required under the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia's licensing.
 * 3) The next link is the article that the edit was made to.
 * 4) The time stamp will indicate when the edit was made. The time will appear in your time zone, as you have it defined in your Special:Preferences. Note that this is different from signature timestamps, which are always in UTC/GMT time.
 * 5) The green or red number after the timestamp will tell you how much was added or removed to the article in the edit. A green "+" number shows the number of bytes added to the article - a red "-" number indicates the number removed. In general, the number of bytes is equal to the number of characters, however this is not always the case: Certain special characters can contain more than one byte, and templates can completely mess this number up. Templates will be covered in another lesson later on, however you will be using some in your patrols later. This number will be in bold if a very large number of characters were removed, which is usually a good indicator of vandalism.
 * 6) The next part is the name of the user who made the edit, which will link to their user page. In this case, an IP address made the edit, so the link will instead go to their contributions. Since most vandalism comes from these anonymous editors, this serves as another convenience to those on patrol. The user name is followed by a link to their talk page.
 * 7) The last part of a RC report is the edit summary. When editing a section of an article, the title of that section will automatically be included in the edit summary, as you see above. Other special edit summaries include "Replaced page with..." and "Blanked the page". In general, these last two are dead giveaways for vandalism edits, however you will occasionally see an editor blank his own user or user talk page, so be careful about that.

Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to go 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: Ghorpaapi (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 

How to Revert
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
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 " has been vandalized by User:Willy on Wheels!" The BASEPAGENAME variable is amagic 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 atWP: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. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Test
The first item you posted was vandalism, the second, probably not, and the third, probably not as well...the second was likely made in good faith, the third, well, any user is allowed to archive their talk page. Granted, this user had some problems in his history, apparently, but I am not sure I would have rushed to call that vandalism.

I'm going to try to keep this test short...that was a lot of reading you just did (or hopefully just did ). There is a practical aspect to this test, so if you don't have Twinkle turned on, I would recommend doing so now.

1.) Q- In your own words, define vandalism.
 * A- An edit/contribution done intentionally or on purpose which is directed towards harming, attacking of wikipedia should be considered as vandalism.


 * ✅ 5/5 Good!

2.) Q- What are obvious indicators of a vandalism edit while watching recent changes?
 * A- While watching recent changes the obvious indicators will be:-


 * Blanking the page by a user (new user to be precise whose name appears in red),. Exceptional cases include:Archiving .
 * IP addresses adding a huge amount of data or removing data which can be noted from the bold Green and Red nummbers in Brackets.
 * Inserting/replacing abusive content in article space.
 * In-case, I have to provide more indicators please let me know.


 * ✅ 4/5 I think #2 is a pretty good example. Huge changes can just be evidence of big fixes or constructive additions, but they certainly merit taking a second look.  I'd add that blanking (see WP:BLANKING) can have legitimate uses, as when a user intentionally deletes a page they realize is non-notable after the fact.  #3 is excellent.

3.) Q- What warning template would you use if a user removed or blanked all the content from a page?
 * A-It depends actually. If it is identified as a vandalism and not archiving ( like it happened above when I mentioned the examples), then
 * ✅ 5/5 Good choice.

4.) What if I came to your talk page and called you a !@#$!#$!@#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!@#$!@#$!@#%#$^$%^#@$~#$@#$%!@#$!@#? Then what warning template would you use?
 * A- well all those special characters above can mention and mean different in different situation. For a person condeming me on my activity to delete his page and calling me an idiot or stupid will have this template as reward  . In case the attack gets serious and includes my family members ( who have almost no idea of how cruel internet is and what is going on over some wikipedia pages over their names), then I will use   . An essay about how I came to this world and the opinion to change the actual scientific theories of reproduction will be awarded  . :D
 * ✅ 5/5 I like the humor, and I appreciate the differentiation in severity. Personally, I have very low tolerance for personal attacks, but I try to pay attention to WP:DNR, too, which is hard (I suggest reading that).  Great work!

5.) What is WP:AIV and when should you use it?
 * A- Administrators Intervention against Vandalism: When the vandals, trolls are identified and there comes a moment when a strict action has to be taken against them because they have already received the warnings and are trying to engage themselves in edit wars, or removing templates, WP:AIV comes into play. Following the 3RR rule will include three stages of warnings already which will be placed on the talk pages of Vandals. If the editor/contributor is totally new it could be a chance of Sockpuppeting as well so I will first have a quick view over the contributions which will in short give me a picture of what the intentions of this user:contributor really are. AS PER THOSE deductions the person will be reported to Admins who have the right to block him, when he has already received the last warning.
 * ✅ 4/5 Pretty much right. I'd add that AIV should be used for very disruptive editing or problems that can't be controlled using other methods.  I don't use AIV often, only when a user has escalated their way up there.

6.) Find three instances of vandalism, revert them, warn the users appropriately, and post the diffs below (the diffs of the vandalism will suffice, I will go ensure that you warned them appropriately and don't need diffs to do so).
 * aCSD template removal
 * b CSD template removal
 * I reverted the main article page back to previous version where there was proper tagging and appropriate and significant information still available.
 * replace the logo of assasins creed with another word in German.
 * ✅ 2.5 4/5 I'm going to have to trust you on the first two, as an admin has taken care of them since (indicating that you were right). For the third one, your warning was right (+.5) but your reversion should have gone further back - later, a user had to revert back further, as, even though you did revert vandalism, you reverted it to another vandalized version!  The fourth link should have assumed good faith.  Please find two more examples, though we can move on in the meantime:

--Jackson Peebles (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for the grading and feedback Jackson ! Some more examples of vandalism are as follows:
 * ✅
 * ✅
 * I actually would've assumed good faith but reverted anyhow. So... half correct.  My rationale would be that it wasn't rude and the topic was sensitive, it merely wasn't notable or well-constructed.  It could very well have been vandalism, but I can't assume that in this case.
 * ✅
 * ✅
 * I hope this time I have good examples. Ghorpaapi (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Much, much better examples. Fantastic job!  Bumping your score up.  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Lesson four
After the mega-lesson that was vandalism, it's time for a mini-lesson on some of the other things you can do with Twinkle. If you don't already have it enabled, you will definitely need to do so for this lesson. It's under the "Gadgets" section of "My Preferences". Aside from it's vandalism tools, there are several other features of Twinkle.

Talkback
Talkback is a feature that allows you, in a single click, to notify a user that you've responded to their message at another page. To use it, mouse over the TW button in the editing interface and select "TB". A window will pop up, that gives you several different options as to what page you're on. All you do is type the name of the page you replied (everything in the URL after en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) and click submit query. If you'd like to link to a section, remember that it's case-sensitive, and type the name of the section. If you'd like to add an additional message, simply type it. It's really easy to use.

RPP
You can also request page protection using Twinkle. Go to whatever page you want to have protected, and click "RPP" under the Twinkle dropdown menu. It will ask you some information, give it to the window, and click submit.

AIV
You probably figured this out in the last lesson, but you can report a vandal to administrators, or a username to WP:UAA, using Twinkle. Click "AIV" or "ARV", depending on what type of page you're on, and fill out the information that you're asked for. Noticing a pattern?

Tags
The next feature we'll discuss is how to add maintenance tags to an article. We'll cover this a bit later in a lesson on working the encyclopedia, but the gist of it is that you select whatever maintenance tag you'd like, and click submit. This feature is located under "Tag" (a truly creative name, I know).

Rollback
The most common feature you'll likely use in Twinkle is the "rollback feature". When looking at a diff, you have three options to rollback an edit: Rollback AGF (assume good faith) which is in green and should be usually be used with newer editors who are acting in good faith, but whose edit wasn't constructive. This type allows you to leave an edit summary, which we'll discuss more in depth later, where you can explain why you're rolling it back. Also, there's simply Rollback which is in light blue. This should be used the most often when rolling back an edit; again, you can (and should) leave an edit summary. Lastly, there's the Rollback Vandal choice, which as soon as you click reverts the edit leaving an automated edit summary. You should then follow up at the vandal's talk page, leaving a warning template, which you should already know how to do.

Welcome
The last feature we'll discuss is welcoming users. To do this, you can either click the yellow text that says "Welcome" next to a user's name when looking at a diff or you can select "Wel" in the Twinkle drop-down menu. You'll then be prompted to select a welcome template.

Questions
Well, this wasn't that short, but it should be a little easier to grasp. Questions, or are you ready for the test (using that word lightly in this case).

No Questions ! Ready for the test ! :) Ghorpaapi (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Test
This test should be relatively easy.

1.) Q- Leave a talkback template below stating you've replied to my post at WP:ANI.
 * A-I cannot find your post at WP:ANI :s . Still here is the talk back.


 * ✅ 5/5 That's exactly what we wanted - not an actual ANI - good work!

2.) Q- Post diffs of you using each of the three types of rollback.
 * A- Diffs:


 * Rollback AGF-
 * Rollback-
 * Rollback Vandal- 1 Removal of CSD tag
 * Rollback Vandal-2
 * ✅ 5/5 Absolutely perfect. You assumed good faith where appropriate, didn't assume when it was hard to tell, and the CSD didn't show up, so I can't make assumptions on that (it could've been deleted per XfD instead of CSD, or you could've been wrong, but I assume good faith .  This is one of those instances where it would be nice to be an admin, though, so I could see what you did (Hint to any nominators).  Anyhow, great job.

3.) Q- Post a diff of you welcoming a new user.
 * A-
 * ✅ 5/5 Good job! I try to do this as often as I can remember; it can make a big difference because it reminds people that we're watching and happy to help.

4.) Q- Post a maintenance tag of your choosing on this page.
 * A- The article is important from Historical point of view but there is only one source available which doesnt seem to be a third party source. Apart from that there is a special quote which needs additional citation for verifiability.
 * ✅ 4.5/5 I would've liked to see a big maintenance tag (i.e. one of the ones that goes up on top), but I didn't specify that, so you get almost all of the credit. Also, you used the template for citations that are needed, which is a huge plus (I hate when people just type in "citation needed" - if you look at my talk page, I recently got into a bit of an argument with someone over that), so good job.  Maintenance tags are helpful, but being bold is better.

5.) Q- Review Question- Ha ha! Cite a situation in which you'd report a user to administrators as a vandal.
 * A- have been sitting almost 5 hours but everytime someone else reports the Vandals and they get blocked. My internet is not fast enough I guess. :/
 * That's fine. It's hard to do.  Might I recommend STiki to help you beat Cluebot NG to the punch?  However, could you cite a situation (hypothetical) in which you would report the user?  Holding of on grading until this is answered.
 * PS-By the way I already posted the new diffs of Vandalisms at the end of last test for your approval. I am not sure if you have already checked them out because I didn't receive any comments from your side. Ghorpaapi (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder - I took a look and liked all but one. I updated your score.  Excellent job, and I'll post the new lesson as soon as you revise question five.  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A(5)-STiki. Yes, I have come across the info. I have also informed myself about it but I need to do some more reading before I use it . Hypothetical Situation for reporting a user to Admins as a vandal--> When a user who is blanking, replacing the content, personal attacks, or the incidents which are clearly  deliberate in order to harm Wikipedia or the users of wikipedia will be rewarded with warnings of course. From the very beginning, when I am coming across a situation that User:Mr X has replaced the content or blanked a random page ,then at first User:Mr X will receive the first level of warning depending on the type of vandalism I believe is taking place. Lets say blanking. Then I will ask User:Mr X to read the policies how WIKIPEDIA works with . If User:Mr X doesn't stop, on further warnings (level 2 , level 3	  , level 4  as well and continues with blanking (and personal attacks which in most cases follows), the last defence mechanism in my hands will be to award  for User:Mr X's blanking efforts. At this point of time I myself will proceed towards the page WP:AIV, if the Cluebot has already not done it (which it usually does, making me feel a human ) and report User:Mr X to admins to have a look on the contributions and take the necessary action. I suppose this sums the answer up .I am good to go for the next lesson. Ghorpaapi (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

✅ 5/5 Great hypothetical, perfect progression. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
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
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 reverts 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 editors 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
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
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
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
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). The editors at each specialise in sorting debates.

Request for Comment
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
I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected it's 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
If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards that you can get some help.

Remember: you could be wrong!
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?
Questions about any of the above?
 * Not yet. but I need some more reading . :s Ghorpaapi (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready for the test.Questions please. Ghorpaapi (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Test
This isn't a really easy topic to test, but we'll give it a go nonetheless !

1.) Q- In your own words, explain each "level" of dispute resolution (e.g., third opinion, mediation, etc.).
 * A-


 * Editor assistance:
 * Have used this so many times. Asking for suggestions, tips and comments . This assistance is the informal help which I often receive from User:Yunshui and also from User:Andy Dingley.Although I have never entered into dispute resolution but I am sure it will be helpful.


 * Third opinion
 * The name itself is self explainatory and involves the opinion of an editor over a discussion or dispute or edit war between two editors or contributors involving a conflict WHEN ASKED. The informal but a preferable way. No-one said it is compulsory but I personally would prefer to have a third pair of eyes have a look on a dispute either by having experienced editors or the members involved in the respective project for the article page.


 * Mediation
 * The informal Mediation Cabal is not in use but the Archives is there for reference. On the other hand Requests for mediation is the formal process. It is the next step for resolving a dispute with the help of the Mediation Committee where the article disputes would be handled by the experienced comittee members to solve the debates and offer a solution.


 * Request for comment
 * involves not only the article pages but also policies and guidelines and this method is to be used to reach a larger group of editors . It should be used when the matter/topic in discussion might need more than one or two opinions. Another part is requesting comment on a user--> should be chosen when at least two editors have tried and not been successful in solving a dispute.


 * Arbitration
 * The most complex or intractable disputes are handeld here. The reading of this article page however gave me goosebumps as if I landed in the darker and jury of all gods on wikipedia.
 * ✅ 5/5 Excellent answers to all components. Worth noting that ArbCom decisions are binding and final, but that's not worth marking down for.  Great work.

2.) Q- Two editors are in a Content dispute. Editor A adds something they feel helps the encyclopedia, Editor B reverts, Editor A re-adds, Editor B reverts again. Two part question:
 * Part A) Is this edit warring?
 * A-Yes.
 * Part B) How should they resolve this dispute?
 * A-As User A thinks he is helping so its a AGF and User B reverts is assuming it might be biased opinion. As it has happened only twice till now so the three revert rule is about to be reached. They should communicate on their respective talk pages before doing any reverts and re-adding the infos. Trying to focus on what actually is wrong in adding the info and how can it be formulated in a mutually accepted way. When both the users are unwilling to compromise the Third Opinon is the next stage which should conclude it. In case the third opinion is not helping mediation commitee should be approached. If I am one of the users involved I will take a break for two or three days because neither wikipedia nor the article is going anywhere. Come back with some MEDITATION done actually and have a look once again which often helped solving disputes with my girl in real life. :D .The pyramid is always to be kept in mind before the name calling stage is reached. Request for Comment and Arbitration will be the next stages in the order I mentioned when there is no fruitful result.
 * ✅ 5/5 Nothing really to add - good job. Remember that you can also always go to an experienced editor or administrator, directly, too, though in this case the unbiased nature of a third opinion is good.

3.) Q- What if you're participating in an Articles for deletion discussion? You post your opinion, let's just say you think the article should be deleted, the creator of the article replies to your edit calling you an incompetent intellectual snob who has no right to edit Wikipedia. How would you handle the situation?
 * A- Firstly, I am on wikipedia to help and contribute. I will not feed the troll because he is no one to judge my level of being intellectual person or incompetent. I will let the person know that the AfD has received my comment because of ABS deficits. In case the deficits are fulfilled the problem will be solved and I myself will support the person to create the article.
 * 2.5/5 I agree with not feeding the trolls (in fact, I may sound like a hypocrite, because I believe that I told you about the essay earlier in the adoption process), but it may be helpful to have a friendly editor slap a "no personal attacks" template on the offending user's talk page. I don't think there's any need to notify the person of your opinion if you've posted it to the AfD discussion page and you didn't start the AfD process; they should already be aware.  You are correct that if the AfD does not establish consensus, the article may 'remain', but this is not AfC - the article has been 'created' already.

4.) Q- OPINION QUESTION What's your opinion of the dispute resolution pyramid that I posted earlier in the lesson? If you could change one aspect of it, what would you change?
 * A- I came across such a pyramid during my masters program in multicultural management. I have lost the pyramid somewhere in my room but I know it exists and is there. I think its a really good pictorial tool to assess which stage an editor actually is in and what could happen further. Here the editor himself can imagine if he can go back to the top and focus on the central point or go further and allow a part of his motivation for being wikipedia loose its soul : ( excuse me in case I have been philosophical but I guess I am really reading a lot of literature these days which is flowing out here on wikipedia right now ).


 * If I could change a single stage of it I would add a smiley like this --> <-- on the pinnacle of pyramid and on the left hand mention:- do your best to improve wiki in the next stages.
 * ✅ 5/5 Fair enough. I think this is GP's thing, so I'll let him take a look over it, but I essentially agree that the pyramid is good.  Congrats on the master's program; that's impressive!

Overall, good answers! I don't think any follow-up is necessary if you read my comments. Posting lesson six now. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Lesson six
Deletion theory is one of the most discussed and contentious issues on Wikipedia. There are two primary factions, the inclusionists and thedeletionists. The full policy on deletion is located here. The basics are below.

Deletion Policies
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 thatWikipedia 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 withdb-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 GFDLcompliance. Tag these with
 * 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.

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.
 * 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 withdb-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.

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 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 atWP:AFD, which I'll explain how ot use in a moment. PROD's also come with a notice for the author,.

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 byconsensus 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
Do you have any questions, or are you ready for the test? -- Go  Phightins  !
 * Thanks a lot for the grades and next lesson. I would defo like to appear for the test before its weekend as I have been using TWINKLE since 2 months almost. I just want to jump in it . Ghorpaapi (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Test
I thought that to test this section, I would ask a few broader, more basic questions, and then create a few pages as hypothetical scenarios. For the hypothetical scenarios, simply state what you'd do if you came across this article in mainspace.

1.) Q- Explain a scenario in which you'd use PROD instead of sending an article to AfD.
 * Broad questions
 * A- Came across this situation a couple of times. One of these was a politician from Pakistan with no references or citations.
 * ✅ 4/5 Seems reasonable, as you might not know the politics of Pakistan, so you wouldn't necessarily have the information to be bold and fix it yourself. In this case, if it's a well put-together article, though, I might just tag it with the proper maintenance tags.  Without more context, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt!

2.) Q- You tag an article for speedy deletion under criterion A7. The creator of the page then blanks it without an edit summary. What do you do?
 * A- A tricky one :D . It has happened a lot of times till now and I am quite used to it. I restore the page to the previous version where I tagged it already and having a glance on the user (if he/she is a new contributor) a welcome message indicating what should not be done. In case the user has an idea about it then I would take it as his own intention to delete the article. As I did it to my sandbox last month. Also I can assume this as a G7 case ( authors request for deletion) which I came to know from Andy later on.
 * ✅ 5/5. Perfect - becomes G7, and good idea about informing the author.

3.) Q- Why should you wait 10-15 minutes before tagging an article for CSD under criteria A1 or A3?
 * A- Because in this time period of 10 to 15 mins there might the proper article structure available or being edited by an editor himself or someone else with profer references or tags.
 * ✅ 5/5 Indeed.

1.) Scenario I
 * Hypothetical scenarios
 * A- A7
 * ✅ 5/5 Yup

2.) Scenario II
 * A- G2
 * ✅ 5/5 Correct again.

3.) Scenario III
 * A- No references. PROD.
 * ✅ 5/5 Okay. I'll go with that; it seems like the best option.

4.) Scenario IV
 * A- The article seems to be notable and might be connected to other series of events as well while the second world war. I would definitely tag the article for a proper maintenance.
 * ✅ 5/5 Nailed it. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Have been really busy at work in the last few days and also had to prepare for a couple of conferences. I think a message or an update for the next inactivity with you or GoP would be a good idea. JHUbal27 is not active on wiki as well and is this the reason why his name is being striked out because of no activtiy in the program ? Ghorpaapi (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Very reasonable. That's correct, and I'll try to do a better job of updating you.  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal Break
You're about half way through the course, so now it's time for a personal break. These questions won't be graded, I just want to get to know a little more about you as a person and as a Wikipedian.

1.) Q- Why did you start editing Wikipedia? Why have you continued to do so?
 * A- I started editing wikipedia to contribute the results or my master thesis and the knowledge which I gathered during the internship. I saw that there was not a single article covering the engineering topic which I found a major part of my studies. The reason I continue here on wikipedia is because every question in my mundane activity can be answered on wikipedia. When the reservoir can be expanded and cleaned to maintain the quality why not me being a part of it.
 * That's awesome! One of the major things that I'm trying to do is incorporate Wikipedia into university curriculum; perhaps we can brainstorm together, at some point?  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool ! sounds interesting and you can count me in as a contributor, unfortunately I won't be able to play a major role in it but yes I will express my personal opinions with suggestions as I am willing to be a part of it and add finishing and polishing ! Are you already involved in some project/projects ? working alone or in a group with a particular university as a pilot program ?

2.) Q- Give me a little background on your username. Is it a derivation of your real name, from a show, sports team, game, book, etc.? Is it simply a random conglomeration of letters?
 * A- My UN comes from Hindi (India). GHOR means - highly intense- it can be depth, breadth or length - (any one dimension of the three or two) and PAAPI means a sinner. I chose this name long time ago when I started DJing as a part time job in my student life in Berlin and wanted a good stage name which connects me to my character, language, personality. Since then I use this UN often.
 * Definitely more original than mine. Do you speak fluent Hindi?  What type of music do you DJ?
 * Yes ! I speak fluent Hindi and have been giving Hindi lessons as well in private to all those bollywood movie fans in Berlin . I am not a professional DJ, just a beginner and have never produced my own music but only editing and the music I am interested in is House, Progressive House, Deep House and Electro House. Bollywood mashups is also what I have started recently.

3.) Q- What is your primary interest area about which you'd like to edit?
 * A- As I have already mentioned about engineering and my ethinical background, I am interested in Engineering, Thermodynamics stuff as per my scientific interests. I like mythology as well but have lost the contact with it a long time ago. Projects related to India could be a good idea but at the moment I really selfish and focussed on my career but whenever I want to have a break I take a small wikipedia tour.
 * I don't think that's selfish. We need volunteers in every area.  It might be fun to explore a bit, though.
 * Indeed, but in the next 2 months I do not think I will be really enthusiastic with Wikipedia, i am sure about my return.
 * PS:I recently got into a real life relationship and i am enjoying it a lot. :D

4.) Q- Do you have any future goals as far as something you'd like to do on Wikipedia?
 * A- Future goals on wikipedia are not yet clear. I am getting the hang of how it works actually at the moment and it is fruitful till now. I assume that new page patrol is what I will continue to do untill I find the moment when I will start dedicating time to maintain, tag or improve articles. Ghorpaapi (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you ever need help, just ask (especially GP!)! I really like STiki, which you need rollback rights for, but I really enjoy fighting vandalism.
 * I will . Thanks :)

It feels good to let people know about something personal. Of course, now this page will be stalked by a lot of people who have been bothered by me or I have been bothering in the last few months. Ghorpaapi (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you'd like, we can have an admin REVDEL this information, just let me know ASAP so it won't be too difficult for them. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes i would like to have this personal info removed soon. Although I am late, still I never forget this [] Ghorpaapi (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * ahhhmmm ! ;) may be you have missed it ? ;) Ghorpaapi (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright
Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. This is perhaps the most complex, most important, and most difficult lessons in the course and policies on 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
There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. If you are having trouble with any, here's a quick reference.

Image Copyright on Wikipedia
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 theWP: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.
 * 1) Free images
 * 2) 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 afree 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 happenedhere) The publicity picture is considered replaceable fair use and so would be deleted.
 * Person X could upload a picture of the Empire State Building from a marketing kit they distributed. This image would likely be copyrighted, and so they claim fair use. But I happen to have been to New York and have a picture of the ESB. I upload that instead and release it into the public domain. The first, copyrighted picture, is also replaceable.
 * For the article on the Monterey Bay Aquarium, I want to upload an image of their logo (visible in no great detail here). I go to their website and upload their version. This fair use is allowable, because no matter where or how they display their logo, it'll be under the same copyright. Since the simple art of scanning or taking a picture of a piece of work is not enough to justify my ownership of the rights to the image, there is no way to obtain a free version of the logo.

Commons
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
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 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
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 will need more time to prepare and read it thoroughly ! :/ Ghorpaapi (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is really a lot of work to read. Everytime I have tried in the last few days I get lost between links. Any tips or tricks apart from the statement --you have to read everything ghorpaapi...thats how is works-- ? I am loosing my motivation with this chapter. :/ Ghorpaapi (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What you can do is request the test, and refer to the lesson during the test. It's "open-book" ... you can look at the lesson, any relevant guidelines, etc.  Go  Phightins  !  11:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay Lets do it that way GoP. I am waiting for the test ! Ghorpaapi (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Test
Here's the test. Don't worry if you struggle a bit with this one. Be sure to explain your answers so I can tell where you're coming from, however as this topic has potential legal ramifications, I won't be able to accept all answers as long as you're thinking and will be more stringent here. Let's go.

1.) Q- Is Wikipedia truly free? This is an opinion question
 * A- Yes the access to information is totally free as anyone who has access to internet can read and edit the general articles on wikipedia. So in one way its free. Simultaneously when it comes to the Non-free imagesthey are subjected to restrictions so its not free as those images 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.
 * ✅ 5/5 I think you got this answer just about perfect, even if it is an opinion.

2.) Q- List three times when you can upload a picture to the Commons.
 * A-


 * my own work. For examples schematic diagrams, pictures taken by me. (not sure if the excel sheets, graphs or tables made by me can also be a part of it?)
 * If the work is in the "public domain" - Very old items, 150 years is a good benchmark
 * The author tags and released it under a compatible license.
 * ✅ 5/5 Very good, right off of the Commons chart. So far, I'm not seeing any reason why you were worried about this test!

3.) Q- You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Can we upload it to Commons?
 * A- I believe the answer has to be a NO. As the Non free content doesn't belong to the commons.
 * ✅ 4/5 Correct. The rationale is actually that since we use a share-alike license, we can't reshare non-free content.

4.) Q- A user uploads a collage of all the Phillies' 2008 players' official team photographs so the photos spell 08 (background: the Phillies won the World Series in 2008). Is this suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia? The user in question created it himself.
 * A-No. The collage is not an original work and is believed to be a derivative work.
 * ✅ 5/5 Completely correct.

5.) Q- What is a derivative work?
 * A- Derived - this reminds me of mathematics and algebra still I will try to answer it in wiki language. The modification, editing, further processing or further editing of any original work is said to be a deivative work.
 * ✅ 5/5 That's a good way of putting it. You're correct.

6.) Q- Can you upload a press image of Barack Obama?
 * A- I personally wish a YES. but for the Wiki guidelines and this test my answer is NO. As its a press image it is taken by a photographer and hence cannot be released in a public domain unless he/she has allowed its free usage.
 * ✅ 4/5 You did your reading, but the rationale is different. The reason we can't is because there are free (and public domain) alternatives available.  If there was no suitable replacement, then you could possibly use it as fair use with some modifications, but there are plenty of alternatives.

7.) Q- What about a press image of a man on death row?
 * A- Yes. But the conditions for fair use apply. In this case I will ask you or GoP if I have any doubts or questions first.
 * ✅ 5/5 Yup. You're less likely to have an official photograph from the government that is public domain in this case, and the conditions of fair use do apply.  You can always ask GP or myself, or you can ask at the help desk or people who specialize in copyright!

8.) Q- What would you do if you found an image that was not released under a suitable tag for inclusion on Wikipedia (e.g., all rights were reserved and the work was not in the public domain)?
 * A-I know I will never engage myself with images and copyright stuff but as a contributor in such a case I will have to tag it for proper reviewing and/or asking the user who has posted it to review it himself before it is getting removed or CSD nomination.
 * ✅ 5/5 Correct answer, and a very reasonable thing to say. Just because we're editors, that doesn't meant that we have to contribute in every part of Wikipedia, especially if we aren't comfortable with something.

9.) Q- 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 How about that - File:Red_Tour.png
 * ✅ 5/5 That works! It's non-free but needed to be used.

I was really avoiding this lesson since a long period of time to be honest but it had to be done. This morning I decided that running away is not helping and my touch to wikipedia is missing (although my girl is really happy about it as she had more time with me ;)): I am sure there are follow up questions coming . I am prepared. Greetings Ghorpaapi (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ 96% I think that you worried too much about this one, and I'm really glad that you finally took the time to do this lesson. Only a tiny bit left, then you'll be all done!  Great work!  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

We're cruising right along, moving into lesson number nine! Congratulations on making it this far. We're now going to dig in to some tougher stuff than what we've been dealing with thus far; the remainder of the lessons will require you to apply what you've learned in prior lessons into scenarios that I will pose to you during the tests.

Consensus
Consensus is the way that decisions are made in Wikipedia. You may see the odd !vote (a coding joke, ! means not - confirming that this isWP:NOTAVOTE and then promptly voting), but these should generally be non-binding based upon weight of numbers, but rather through the weight of their 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 decree from Wikimedia foundation or 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 andcopyright violations.

Community
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. You've already learned about vandalism in a separate lesson, so we don't need to worry about that at the moment.

Policy and guidelines
Most of what we do on 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, the describe how the community works and in generally that remains relatively constant at the policy level.

Ignore all rules
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." This is the fifth pillar of Wikipedia. I've seen people try to apply it, and it seldom works in their argument, but it's definitely worth keeping in mind. There is a good essay on how to apply this concept here. Originally, this policy was written by co-founder Larry Sanger. He phrased the policy like this: If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business.There are an innumerate number of interpretations of this policy; over the years I've begun to develop mine, and you'll have to develop yours, but that's the general gist of it.

Questions
Well, that's that. Do you have any questions on Consensus or policy?
 * No! At the moment it seems to be an interesting topic ! Might be that I will choose it for my later activities. Please post the test :) Ghorpaapi (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! Here you go!  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Test
On this test, I'm looking for some quality thinking; make your argument, do it effectively, and you'll probably get a good score. Without further adieu, here we go.

1.) Q- Explain the differences between a policy, a guideline, and an essay.
 * A-
 * Policy includes the standards what the editors and contributors should normally follow.
 * Guidelines on the other hand are the set of best practices and are supported by consensus. There is no obligation to follow them but editors should try to follow them.
 * Essays are the advices from one editor or a group of editors for example when I ask you or GoP a question and you advice me in your own words about a particular topic from a page which is created specifically for adoption program will be considered as an essay. But the links like [WP:POLICIES] will be a link to policy where the proper guidelines will be mentioned.

2.) Q- Citing an example that's actually occurred on Wikipedia within the last couple of years, explain whether or not you think that Wikipedia is a de factobureaucracy.
 * A-

3.) Q- Can policies change? If you wanted to change one, how would you go about doing so?
 * A-

4.) Q- Explain a situation in which you could apply WP:IAR.
 * A-

5.) Q- Are decrees from the Wikimedia Foundation subject to change from the Wikipedia community?
 * A-