User:Pr3st0n/Adoption

Welcome to the Policies and Guidelines page. The this is used to mentor Pr3st0n on Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines.

Overview
These are the policies and guidelines you will learn about during the discussion.These are not all of the policies and guidelines, but merely the most useful ones.


 * WP:NOT
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:COPY
 * WP:EQ
 * WP:IAR
 * WP:EW
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:SOCK
 * WP:EP
 * WP:3RR
 * WP:VAN
 * WP:NOR
 * WP:V
 * WP:CSD
 * WP:DP
 * WP:BP
 * WP:BAN
 * WP:COPYVIO

Five Pillars
Let's start with the five pillars of Wikipedia. I would like you to read What Wikipedia is not and comment below about what you learned.


 * Here are the main points I understood from it.


 * 1) Formatting and style
 * 2) *Wikipedia has no limits on the amount of articles can be created or on the length of articles. However, it is recommendable to keep the articles at a reasonable size to prevent creating too many problems for the reader, editor or browsers. It also doesn't mean that are able to create an article on whatever topic we want.
 * 3) *If an article becomes too long, it is better to split the article, thus creating subtopics, and linking them into each other using a template such as "Further information as ...". The lead section of an article should contain a summary of the most important points about the subject of the article.
 * 4) *The manual of style (MoS) should be kept to when editing any article.
 * 5) Article content
 * 6) *Articles which contain only a few lines should not be created. (such as mere definitions of a word)
 * 7) *Articles which contain publishings on personal ideas, feelings or any research on subjects and any other insignificant things that are not verifiable, should not be created. They should not be used for discussing various topics, and talk pages should be used to discuss related matters only.
 * 8) *We should not use articles for gossip, promotional and publicity information.
 * 9) *It is recommended that we avoid excessive addition of external/internal links, images and other media.
 * 10) *We are not to use Wikipedia to host our own websites of any type.
 * 11) *We should not include lists of insignificant things, directories, catalogs etc. Wikipedia is not a collection of data. Just because something exists, it doesn't mean it should be included.
 * 12) *Only provide information on the article's subject and avoid any intentions to provide instructions on how to do something.
 * 13) *Wikipedia is not a site to speculate on what we thing will happen, unless clearly verifiable and it is obvious that it will happen.
 * 14) *Include notable information only. News, statistics etc. that is of insignificance, even if it is verifiable, should not be included.
 * 15) *Any context that may be considered inappropriate if included in articles, may be appropriate or even needed for an article related to that subject. Such additions are allowed, as wikipedia is not censored and material is only deemed inappropriate according to the context it appears in.
 * 16) The wikipedia community
 * 17) *Wikipedia is not a place where you do something by voting (eg: decide whether an edit is allowable). This is done by verifying with reliable sources and open discussions.
 * 18) *The Wikipedia policies and guidelines are something that all users should abide to in order improve wikipedia and its standards. It doesn't however, have any fixed rules and doesn't force users to do anything.
 * 19) *Common sense from users should be used when dealing with the policies and guidelines. Resolved problems through discussion and avoid enforcing them upon others.
 * 20) *Personal attack of any kind on another user is not recommended, and must be avoided if possible. We as users, are expected to interact and cooperate in a peaceful, friendly manner. Any disputes should be resolved through discussion. The help of a another user as a third-party/mediator can be taken for this if needed.
 * 21) *Though wikipedia is not 'governed' by anyone or have fixed rules, it doesn't mean that users are free to do whatever they like. Users should note that only encyclopaedic content is acceptable.
 * 22) *No page, including the userpages, should not be used for personal, unrelated information to wikipedia. Userpages are there to help improve collaboration among other users. Wikipedia should not be treated as a web host where you can keep whatever you want.
 * 23) If you think that something you're about to do is probably a bad idea or doesn't comply with the policies and guidelines, then think again about doing it, and stick to what is important to Wikipedia only.
 * 24) Only include context to an article that a reader would expect to find there on the subject of the article. Insignificant information should not be there. The removal of such insignificance is likely to be removed, and can even result in the entire article being deleted.

I have one question on my findings. It states that a person mustn't use their userpage as a web host for information about themselves. However, I have come across a few pages that seem to do exactly that. I know my own page has some personal touches to them, but I don't use it as a personal web hosting, such as; Am I in breaking these guidelines by having these? Pr3st0n (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I keep other users informed on the times I'm most likely to be available (e.g. my talk page shows times I work, and thus people will understand why at times I may not have replied to them immediately, despite other times I reply rapidly).
 * My main userpage, has a "things to do list" in it, this is a tool for myself, to keep tracks on the articles I'm working on, and any tasks I've been asked to do, in order to stop me forgetting.
 * I also have a page I've called "wiki-friends", which is there purely so I have a quick reference to other wikipedians I've met, who I can contact if I have a query on something related to Wikipedia.
 * Both your table on the times you will be available and your task list are acceptable. Your wikifriends page is also acceptable, but I would highly suggest you just add that section to your userpage, instead of keeping a fill subpage for it.-- LAA Fan sign review 02:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a new assignment for you. I would like you to read the other four pillars and give a two sentence summary of each policy. These are the main points of Wikipedia, so it is needed to assess these. Not all assignments will be as time consuming. Questions are welcome.

Thank you for answering my queries on the first assignment. Here are my findings for Assignment II. Pr3st0n (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:GreenPillar.svg|25px]] Wikipedia has a neutral point of view
 * 2) *It is important that all articles are written from a neutral point of view, presenting as many different views and giving them sources of verifiable cause. Avoid being biased on any views, and concentrate on giving as much focus as possible, in equal proportion.
 * 3) [[Image:YellowPillar.svg|25px]] Wikipedia is free content
 * 4) *I've learnt a lot about this pillar very recently on the Lostock Hall article I've been working on. I learnt that it is wrong to copy content directly from any website into a wikipedia article without permission.  However, at times this can be allowed, as long as it is in the 'Public Domain', another words, the material was written before January 1923, and an attribution is included in the article, in the 'References' section.  Content from wikipedia can also be copied, modified, and redistributed as long as wikipedia and the authors are attributed to it.
 * 5) [[Image:OrangePillar.svg|25px]] Wikipedia has a code of conduct
 * 6) *Assuming good faith is essential when editing any article. Be as polite and helpful as possible.  Respect users in the same manner as you would expect to be respected in return (e.g. I would feel bad if someone was nasty to me, and therefore should not be nasty to others).  Openly discuss with other editors if ever you have doubts or queries on an article, and try not to get into a 'heated' argument.
 * 7) [[Image:RedPillar.svg|25px]] Wikipedia does not have firm rules
 * 8) *Even though some would expect the wikipedia policies and guidelines to be paramount, this in fact not the case. The guidance has no strict rules that states users must abide to them, and you're not going to be put in front of a wikipedia court of law system if we were to break them.  Although users should be very careful in the ways they choose to ignore the rules, (if you have been prevented from contributing to wikipedia), as it may have major impacts on them and wikipedia as a whole.

Homework
Thank you for posting this, and helping me out. As I previously mentioned, I was working a very late shift at the pub on Friday 2 October, and it was after 2am (UK time) that I finally got home. This posting hadn't been made by that time, otherwise I would have started work on it. However, I did work on improving the Lostock Hall article, to which some suggestions where put forward. After spending a good 4-5 hours, I finally headed off to bed for some well deserved rest. I will now take time to read the links you have provided. Although with another couple of days work ahead, I will only be able to put aside, a minimum of 1 hour, possible 2 hours to work on this. What is the deadline that you want my findings in by? Bare in mind my hectic and unsociable working pattern. Regards, Pr3st0n (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline, but try to get it done as soon as you can.-- LAA Fan sign review 20:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocking Policy
Next will be the blocking policy. Blocked means that you did not help the encyclopedia when given the chance. (This is just a general warning, none of it aimed at you). With that said, I would like you to read the blocking policy and banning policy (WP:BP,WP:BAN). When done, I would like you to tell me what is the difference between a ban and a block. Questions are welcome.


 * This might be a silly question, but, am I being blocked or is this Assignment 3? Pr3st0n (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this is just a general warning. You have done nothing wrong. It is essential that editors know the difference between a ban and a block.-- LAA Fan sign review 15:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's OK! I feel like a complete twit now. Its when I read "This is just a general warning, none of it aimed at you", that I got confused. I thought I was being given a general warning and wasn't aware what I had done - LOL. Anyway, back to business at hand, and this assignment.

After reading WP:BP & WP:BAN, I found that there is a huge difference between a ban and a block, however, there is also a slight connection between the two. This connection being to do with 'edit restrictions'. A block is an enforced restriction, a in order to prevent a user from actively editing anything on wikipedia. A user has a block imposed on them for due to extreme violation of wikipedia policies. When a block has been issued, they are prohibited from making any edits, whether they be minor or major ones. This prevention of edit activity will remain until the block expires, unless it is a infinite block.

A ban, however, is slightly different; in that an editor is expected to restrain themselves from making edits for a certain period of time; very similar to the British Anti-social behaviour order (ASBO); were an offender is issued with a caution and is told to stay away from doing something until further notice. Wikipedia bans, like ASBO's, tend to be issued against vandalism or continued disruptive behaviour (with disruptive in Wikipedian terms being editing).

Overall, these penalties are issued to help improve the consistency and quality of article throughout wikipedia, by coaxing more constructive and productive edits, without causing unnecessary damage whatsoever. Both penalties can have a limited, or even unlimited period of longevity. A ban can even be full or partial, which would apply only to a specific page or pages. Blocks can help to enforce a ban (apart from partial bans). If a ban becomes violated in any way, it will result in either the ban being extended, or worse scenario, a block being applied. Failure to comply to a block will only result in the length of the block being extended even further, or worse still, being permanent. It is wise not to even attempt to use a different account or IP address to evade any ban or block penalties, as these too will become banned or blocked. Any edits made by a user who is banned or blocked will be reverted. An appeal can be lodged by the user if they feel the penalty was unjustified, although personally, I would say they better have a God damn good excuse as to why they think the issue of the penalty was wrong in the first place.


 * End of Assignment 3 Pr3st0n (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Good answers. Now that that has been covered, let's talk about how you can get blocked. Three typical ways you can get blocked are if you vandalize, have sock puppets, or violate the three reversion rule. Vandalism and having sock puppets is obvious, but the 3RR is something that you can get caught in if you're not careful. Therefore, I would like you to read WP:3RR and comment about what you learned.

Assignment IV A limitation of three reversions per page, per day, is expected from all users of wikipedia. This is to help minimise warring of edits. The meaning of a 'revert' is the undoing of edits made by another user (normal edits don't come under this rule). If a user makes reverts via the aid of other accounts, then these will also be taken into consideration, and classified as a revert by the same person. Any violation of the 3RR could result in a 24 hour block. If it becomes a continuous 3RR violation by the user, then this block will be repeated, but with an increased period of being blocked. Although, if an editors reverts are obviously made in a disruptive manner, they could face being blocked despite if 3 or more reverts have taken place. It is encouraged that users discuss edits with other users, and come to an overall agreement instead of reverting another editor's alterations. An exception to this rule includes reverting own edits; reverting obvious vandalism/disruptive edits; and undoing edits of a banned user. If an editors realises they have violated the 3RR, the reverts should be reverted back to the previous version(s).
 * End of Assignment IV - Pr3st0n (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your answers look good. I would now like to read WP:SOCK and WP:VAN, and give examples on how they are different from each other. Questions are welcome.-- LAA Fan sign review 02:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Assignment V Some editors create alternative accounts intended for malicious purposes, these types of accounts are known as "Sockpuppets". Sockpuppets created on Wikipedia are mainly used to violate policies set by the Wikipedia team, whilst the user can make their own account appear to be "clean" of unorthodox edits. Some users also user these sockpuppet accounts as an added bonus consensus, to make it look like other editors agree with your views in regards to an ongoing dispute, were there is a majority of "official" editors who are in disagreement with your views. It is known that some users hold these accounts so that they can purposely vandalise articles, so that their main account can revert these falsified edits, making the main user look "heroic" against vandals.

Under some exceptional circumstances, alternative (additional) accounts are permitted, and these are not classified as "sockpuppetry". The use of additional accounts to maintain disruptive edits will result in not only the "additional" account being blocked or banned, but also the main users account too. It is possible to identify sockpuppet accounts by operating a "checkuser" report. Any suspected "sockpuppets" MUST be reported immediately to prevent any further disruption throughout Wikipedia.

To vandalise an article, is to maliciously intend to harm an article by making edits of a falsified nature. Any edits that are made with the assumption of good faith, however, are not looked at as an act of vandalism, despite whether they are falsified or unhelpful to the article in general. It is also not deemed to be an act of vandalism, if the edits have been made by a new editor, as a "test" edit; and we're to assume that it was a mistake on their behalf. It would be seen as an act of good faith, if we were to offer advice, support, and help for future reference, in circumstances like this.

Such acts of vandalism can include:
 * Removal of content.
 * Changing/adding content that is wrong.
 * Containing profanity.
 * Random adding of unrelated characters.
 * Including inappropriate links to an article reference.
 * The use of misguiding edit summaries to hide vandalism.

Vandalism templates are more likely to affect multiple pages; while CSS vandalism will disrupt editing or viewing of a page.


 * End of Assignment V - Pr3st0n (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)