User:JHUbal27/Adopt/LesVegas

Welcome
Hello LesVegas and welcome to my adoption course! Unless otherwise stated, all content on this website can be reused and redistributed by anyone. Therefore, my lesson plans will be adapted from User:Go Phightins!/Adopt. It will teach you all the details. If you need help with wikicode, use this cheatsheet to help you. Good luck and I look forward to your adoption. If you have any specific questions (other than the course), please post them on the talk page. Let's begin, shall we? Please complete lesson one below. JHU bal  27  06:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please sign here:

Lesson One: The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
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  06:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting, so I also read everything on the reliable sources page. So Wikipedia doesn't allow primary sources? So, if for instance if a Senator got drunk one night, fired up his webcam and admitted to the world on YouTube that he likes the company of male prostitutes, we couldn't say "Senator so and so says he likes male prostitutes" (source: his youtube video) Are you saying we would instead have to wait for Foxnews or MSNBC or the Wall St journal to write up a piece on it and then quote that?
 * We cannot say that because it violates the biography of living persons policy about primary sources and self published sources. We have to make sure that all information can be verifiable and reliable. See WP:PRIMARY, where it specifically states that primary sources should never be the only sources to be used.
 * JHU bal  27  20:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is all very interesting! OK, my example has me thinking about new questions. So, what if, the senator takes the video down ASAP, then when asked by the media he says it wasn't him, his CPU didn't even work last night, etc. Maybe MSNBC and Foxnews and WSJ don't report on it. But maybe some online news sources do. At what point are those reliable? I'm thinking particularly about the real world example where President Clinton had the affair with Monica Lewinski. The mainstream media didn't report on it, but Drudge Report did, actually before Drudge Report was a household name. If Wikipedia existed then, at what point could we claim and source the affair? Would it have been when Drudge Report reported on it? Or would it have been when the mainstream media finally was forced to report on it? This is interesting to think about!


 * Ok, I've got one more for you. You gave an example of an article about broken bones and how it shouldn't have anything related to homeopathy in it, for meutrality's sake. While I was living in China, I mountain climbed constantly. One day, I slipped and fell 20 feet on my arm, and pop, it was broken. So I went to the hospital there and they did all the typical stuff, X-Rays, put me in a cast, etc, but they also brewed me up some customized herbal formula in these little pouches and told me to drink it 3x per day. I also went back to the hospital everyday and got acupuncture for my pain and healing. Well, I've broken several bones over the years, and I've got to tell you that was the best recovery experience of my life! My pain was a 10/10 and after my first acupuncture treatment it went to a 6/10 and every session would drop it one or two more numbers each time. And the herbs tasted like horsepiss, and might have been just that, but I healed twice as fast as I ever had before with any of the other broken bones. So anywhoo, what's the policy on something like that? What if there's studies showing the merits of that type of approach? At what point does its inclusion violate neutrality, and at what point does its exclusion create Eurocentric bias? LesVegas (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Clinton scenario, sources are considered reliable if they are subject to editorial oversight and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I don't know the reputation (if any) the Drudge Report had in the 1990s, but for contentious claims about living persons we tend to require the best sources.
 * On the alternative medicine issue, personal testimonies such as yours never are acceptable as references. If there are studies, things get much more interesting. WP:MEDRS has specific guidelines on what's considered reliable in a medical context. So if someone has performed a double-blind study on the efficiacy of the herbal concoction to combat pain, or better yet, a meta-study summarizing the results of a half-dozen unrelated studies, that peer-reviewed paper would be a good source. On the neutrality vs. Eurocentric bias issue, the relevant policy is WP:NPOV: Wikipedia content should be based on a neutral point of view, which doesn't mean that we should give every point of view equal space, but that we should give every point of view space corresponding to the percentage of reliable sources taking this point of view. The sources' country of origin is irrelevant, the quality and quantity is not. Huon (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Test
Please go back and re-take the test because I felt you did not answer the questions seriously. Please cite the policies you learned by using links, such as. I will grade it once you did the following. Thank you! JHU bal  27  19:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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, it's an unreliable source, it's hearsay, my friend isn't at Harvard and even if he was it's not published in a secondary source.
 * Correct, the issues here are verifiability and reliability, because you would need secondary sources to assert your claim. 5/5 JHU  bal  27

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- No, it's my opinion and it's, therefore original research.
 * Follow-up Question: If this was your interpretation that the cartoon was racist, then it would be likely to be challenged, correct? What other policy says that we shoule avoid stating opinions as facts? 3/5 Great answer. 5/5

WP:FAPO as well as WP:YESPOV

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- Nope, because you're doing original research by linking Capitalists to diabetes and Socialists to cancer, and that's not what the sources say.
 * Correct, because you are synthesizing information, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. 4.5/5

4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
 * A- Very interesting question. News organizations report both factual and opinionated content. If FoxNews reported on a fire at MSNBC's headquarters, that would be reliable. But if Bill O'Reilly said Rachel Maddow "looks like a man, walks like a man, and is definitely a man" you couldn't change Rachel Maddow's gender on her page and source it to Bill O'Reilly. In that case, Fox would be unreliable. (While there may still be a joke somewhere in here, I think you still get the point)
 * Follow-up Question- Would you consider FOX News a reliable source for stating that Sarah Palin was the former governor of Alaska? How about if FOX News said that MSNBC's ratings wre the highest? 3.5 Once again you gave a much better answer. 4.5/5

Yes, as I stated, news organizations a report both factual and opinionated information. Foxnews is reliable when stating she was the former governor of Alaska. If Fox reported MSNBC's ratings were the highest (or lowest), this would be factual, provided the source they were accurately quoting Neilson Ratings, otherwise it could be venturing into the realm of opinion.

5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page a reliable source?
 * A- Depends, if Ben and Jerry's tweeted that "Espresso Rocket Fuel gives us gas" and you stated a flavor of their ice cream gives them flatulance, you're definitely doing original research. Probably almost everything they'd tweet would be primary and therefore not allowed. Now if they tweeted a fact about GMO's causing infertility, you could say its secondary and use it, but it'd be much better to find a secondary scientific source. (Again, joke but made my point)
 * Fair enough. We do prefer secondary sources here at Wikipedia, but how about if they were announcing a new ice-cream flavor? They already would have stated that and it is not reliable. Just some food for thought. 3.5/5 Much better answer. You really improved yourself. I am very impressed. 5/5

If they were announcing a new ice cream flavor, it would be selfsource, which would be allowed, even though a secondary source would be ideal.

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- No, while some forum officials might even say they speak on behalf of the company they represent, they would not be a reliable source. However, I f the CEO said it and it was stated in a reliable secondary source, it would be reliable.
 * Forum officials may be self-proclaimed experts and are generally unreliable as they may report unreliable content. If you could find reliable secondary sources, then I would agree with the CEO's comments. 4/5

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- No, but I'd just be on the lookout in case that citation was a self-serving whopper. Seriously, WP: SELFSOURCE says self published sources may be used for information about themselves, but to ensure the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim, it does not involve claims about third parties, it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, the article is not based primarily on such sources.
 * While I would have liked you to explain it in your own words, I appreciate your citation of policy. That being said, primary sources are generally not supposed to be used. 4/5

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- Nope, just because one editor has a fringe theory it doesn't necessitate that I have to prove a claim we all know to be true, ie "the sky is blue".
 * Absolutely correct. Wikipedia says that you do not need a source for general knowledge because it can be proven in the reliable sources. See WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE for two conflicting essays on the topic. 4.5/5

Total: 33/40 37/40 (Although I may consult for a second opinion)

Lesson Two: Wikiquette
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. To reiterate, until proven otherwise, all editors are acting in good faith.
 * 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 contributor. 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. JHU bal  27

No questions at all! Seems pretty straightforward! LesVegas (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Test
Without further adieu, here is the test:

1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith. Cite an example of a situation in which, while it may be tempting not to, one should still assume faith.
 * A- Good faith means all the idiot jerkoffs who make stupid edits aren't actually idiot jerkoffs and their edits aren't stupid. They are coming to wikipedia to make improvements and honestly care about the encyclopedia. I would say that sometimes it's not necessary to assume good faith if it's obvious they're not here to improve the encyclopedia, but these cases are probably more rare. LesVegas (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Decent response. I think you summed it up pretty well. You are assuming that people are acting in good faith unless it is obvious that they aren't. 4/5

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- I would apologize to him, saying that, since he was the creator, he was probably aware of the issues and was likely trying to make even better corrections than I was. I'd tell him I was unaware he was making edits at the same time I was and apologize. Assuming good faith that his edits were excellent ones,mid invite him to a talk page to explain to me what he is trying to do, and, if he'd want any collaborative help. That way, I could undo the damage I unknowingly caused by helping him to make the article even better and personally helping to restore the edits he was working on. LesVegas (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I could not think of a better way to rectify this issue, so I give you a perfect score. 5/5

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 first, but also Rod's mate and even Freddie in his last post. LesVegas (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was looking for one answer, but he was confusing the thread, so to speak. The answer I was looking looking was Rod. 1.5/2

3b.) Position B?
 * A- Hmmm.. Volkswagen Passat isn't a response to the question Jane asked, even though it immediately follows her question. He already replied with that answer earlier, so I'm not real sure who he's replying to, based on how this question is constructed. LesVegas (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The correct answer is Rod's mate, because he is saying "Like what?" That being said, I unfortunately Vann a war points do this question. 0/2

3c.) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
 * A- Interesting question. I read that article and nowhere did it say not to report it. But I think we should assume good faith first. They might just be a quick learner! If the editor begins to exhibit bad behavior or similar behavior to the suspected "Sockpuppet", then at that time we should absolutely report it. LesVegas (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct. Just make sure that their previous edits are not vandalism edits. 4/5

4.) In which of the following scenarios is it OK not to assume good faith. Please bold your selection (use three apostrophes bold text before and after the choice).
 * I: An editor comes to your talk page and calls you an idiot because you reverted his edit.
 * II: An IP editor deletes the content on Barack Obama, and replaces it with "Barack Hussein Obama is an _______(insert expletive here) Muslim who will rot in _____"
 * III: An editor deletes all the content on a page and replaces it with "butts"
 * A: I only
 * B: II and III
 * C: II only
 * D: III only
 * E: I, II, and III
 * F: None of the above.
 * Explain your answer: In scenario I, the other editor made a personal attack, but that doesn't mean I should stoop to his level and attack him back. Scenarios II and III are examples of vandalism. Those editors aren't here to improve wikipedia, but rather harm it. LesVegas (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Explanation: I don't think Go Phightins! clarified how to use bold text, first of all. Just use three (ignore code and nowiki)  before and after what you want to be bolder. That being said, this is a new question with no right answer. But, in scenario #1, it is a personal attack which is not acceptable under any circumstances. #2 is definitely a vandal edit and a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. #3 could possibly be a test edit, so be very careful uncles they do future vandalism edits. You are right, but I think the answer should be #2 only. 3.5/5
 * If I may interject, I wrote this question for the explanation not the answer ... #2 could even be good faith as well. Christians, for example, believe anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ as his or her Lord and Savior cannot be saved (i.e. go to Heaven). If an editor believes President Obama is a Muslim, which several admittedly fringe media outlets have reported, Christians would believe he would go to Hell, as Muslims do not believe Jesus Christ is their savior. As such, a good faith editor could potentially believe that because he is not a Christian, he would go to Hell, which would mean that #2 could potentially be good faith. Probably not, but you have to consider every angle, and unequivocally assume good faith. Just wanted to chime in. Carry on.  Go  Phightins  !  18:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

When you're finished, we'll move on to a really fun topic, vandalism.

Total: 18/24 (75%) (Barely passing, but I think you understand the concept.)

Lesson Three: Vandalism
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.)
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Numbers one and three are blatant vandalism, but #2 might have been done in good faith. While it should have been reverted (and it was), it could have been justified because O.G. Mudbone is apparently a real, but not notable, person. I am assuming good faith in this scenario, so it would not be vandalism in my opinion unless they go out and deface other articles. And you did not sign the Content Disclaimer warning but it's not that important. JHU  bal  27  04:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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:

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 a magic word that displays the name of the page. After his blocking, Willy continued to create hundreds of sockpuppets for the same purpose. This sort of vandal is clearly here to vandalize, as such actions are not accidental. With them, you can safely assume bad faith right from the start and slam them with a more severe warning. No, you don't have to escalate in all cases - if there is no doubt that the edit was made with bad intentions, you may start with a higher level than normal. The "4im" level is designed specifically for cases of severe vandalism, and is an only warning to cease and desist.

Keep an eye out for all of these vandals, and keep that information in mind when stopping them. There is a full customized range of warning templates to be found at WP:UTM - use the most specific one possible, so that the vandal, if he did make a simple mistake, has the links at hand to learn from his mistake and improve. Any questions, please put them on the adoption talk page.
 * Makes sense, seems like you did a good job explaining everything. LesVegas (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Test
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- It is when an editor has malicious intent in making changes to wikipedia. It is when you have a construction crew working hard to build a house and one guy is deliberately unscrewing fasteners in hopes that the walls will fall down. LesVegas (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

2.) Q- What are obvious indicators of a vandalism edit while watching recent changes (e.g., before you look at the edit, what are indicators of vandalism from the list of recent edits at Special:RecentChanges?
 * A- In the edit summary, someone says it is a vandalism edit they are reverting. The reverter uses TW or HG to make their corrections. As far as spotting a vandal edit, these are harder, but it could be on a particular page, such as a redirect page that usually shouldn't be edited. They could also blank the page. IP editors without a name also might be suspect. If the editor has already made other vandal edits, follow all their other edits on recent changes because they'll probably make more. LesVegas (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

3.) Q- What warning template would you use if a user removed or blanked all the content from a page?
 * A- [[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm LesVegas. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! LesVegas (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC) then Information orange.svg Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. LesVegas (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

4.) What if I came to your talk page and called you a !@#$!#$!@#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!@#$!@#$!@#%#$^$%^#@$~#$@#$%!@#$!@#? Then what warning template would you use?
 * A- This or these variants: [[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm LesVegas. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 	Information orange.svg Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.	[[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 	[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.	[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Although, I should say I'm likely to ignore personal attacks, it's just my personality. LesVegas (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

5.) What is WP:AIV and when should you use it?
 * A- it's Admin Intervention against Vandalism. You first give warnings to the vandal, and if their behavior persists you go to this noticeboards to alert an admin. They can block the user, you can't. LesVegas (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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). 7.) Should you always use warning templates when reverting vandalism?
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * A-Yes, even if you're not sure if it's vandalism or not. In that case you use this tag: Information.svg Hello, I'm LesVegas. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! LesVegas (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)