User:Titodutta/CVU/Students/Caballero1967

Let's start. We'll discuss here. Once you are done you may add a Talkback (or a simple message) on my talk (not mandatory). Please watchlist this page as well.

Read
Please read WP:Vandalism and WP:AGF. --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reading. Doing it now. Historiador (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. :) --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am done with the reading, but not yet with memorization :) I suppose that learning comes with practice. Historiador (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:DISRUPT, and WP:COI. Feel free to ask question. --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Done with the reading, thanks. As before, these articles are the cumulative wisdom of many editors organized and reevaluated over a good number of years. Perhaps, the best way to become familiar with it, would be to put it in practice. So, please, let me know what you think of these cases. User_talk:Royalcourtier His actions came to my attention while patrolling an article I have contributed. I wrote a note on the same page addressing the issue he had actually started, and then noticed others have had troubles with his contributions, and continued with the conversation there. He/she has not answered, however. I wonder if my own interventions may be seen as disruptive editing. The other case is one I just found today, which appears as a conflict of interest. I followed a conversation in the Talk Page, tagged the article, warned the original author and contacted an administrator who had deleted a previous version of this page last year. You can follow all of this in my contribution page. Here is the article: Bacolod Evangelical Church. Please, let me know what you think. Thanks. Historiador (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, after CSD tagging, it could be taken to WP:CSD (and not PROD), if it is really a spam, it could be speedily deleted from there. Okay, I know, you have not tagged it. --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions
Do you use any tool such as WP:Twinkle, WP:STiki to fight vandalism? --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have used WP:Twinkle and wish to learn WP:STiki soon. Thanks


 * Your reverts look good, still could you explain why did you revet:
 * 1
 * 2

--Tito Dutta (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your encouragement and for asking about my reverts.
 * 1- "Owned by Jews" is among the oldest disparaging ethnic remarks in history. When I noticed the user's first instance, I checked for reasons and connections to the article and found none. Then looked into the user's contribution and noticed the  sequence. I think the purpose was evident.


 * 2- The term male entertainer has several meanings. Among many professionals, it runs the gamut from actors, comedians, to musicians, but in the Internet's popular culture it is often linked to male strippers, which is also a common way of depreciating individuals or simply, vandalism. It is important to state that I do not think there is something wrong in this career. Rather, that many people, especially young high schoolers, see it as a way of making fun of others. So, I looked for design and purpose in changing the BLP's occupation from entrepreneur to male entertainer and saw nothing obvious. Searched for the name in Australia, and found nobody with this description, and again thought the reasons for the change were inconspicuous. The next step required me to ask the user to provide sources, which is what I did: a revert on good faith requesting evidence.


 * Of all the reverts I performed yesterday, I had about 5 good turned-backs. Take this one: an infrequent, but correct use of the word "remonstrate" (I thanked the editor). Others, I had to go back and re-explain my case, for example, when a new user said he/she heard it in the radio (it was a good faith issue too), and I re-asked for evidence or for an explanation/discussion in the article's Talk Page prior to changes to the article. I posted my comments in both the user and the article's Talk pages.


 * Please, let me know your thoughts. You may have a different take Historiador (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's great. --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:Protection policy --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Will do. Historiador (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also read WP:3RR, WP:1RR
 * Let me know if you have finished reading. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Reading about Page Protection and Edit Warring policy

 * Please, accept my apologies for the long wait in responding. Final exams first got in the way, and then a series of issues related to WP drew me away from responding, but not from the assignment. What I mean is that while dealing with issues of edit warring, vandalism, and page protection, I had to review, several times, the pages you assigned me to read. In fact, I had to read much more than those. Today, I went back to them and re-read them with the intent of preparing for your questions. Perusing them prompted me to ask a question in the Edit Warring Talk page noticeboard.


 * About the time you assigned me this reading, I also descended into an acidic discussion with an administrator here. It all started when rather than reverting an IP User's deletion, which I found incorrect, I followed "good practices" and explained my concerns in the article's Talk Page. Despite the evidence and arguments I brought, the administrator (sole participant) was adamant to keep the change. Unintentionally, he became a teacher by throwing unfamiliar terms and policies at me. But the schooling did not stop there. Thinking that this administrator was unreasonable, I asked for advice to other users, unknown to me. One of them thought I was asking her to join the discussion, and her presence just infuriated the administrator even more. In the end, we decided to close the discussion and return to it later. I had not visited the page since.
 * My first experience in the Edit Warring noticeboard began when I reverted a user with a history of combative editing, and he accused me of warring with only three reverts. Here is the long debate. It ended in "no-violation," but not after I had worried plenty and invested much in defending my actions. Both of these experiences changed me. I am now more careful with Stiki, and cognizant that in WP the human interactions are more unpredictable and often less polite than what I thought before.
 * Though I have edited WP for more than ten years and have a long and rich experience with scholarly online forums, I was not prepared for the contempt and meanness that I found after becoming more involved. It has at times led me to rethink my association with this project. It has not been all somber, however, for example, here and here. But working with Stiki has ensured that I continue to encounter controversies. Fortunately, they have grown fewer and less hostile. I am a bit more detached from the pages I patrol for vandalism, but can't feel the same with those in which I have made a substantial investment, and where I feel I am an authority on the subject (for example, here). In sum, the ups and downs since we last spoke have made me appreciate these pages in relation to real-life circumstances. I wonder what editors used before them. Please, let me know what questions you have for me.  Caballero// Historiador    ☊  17:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's alright. What happened to your other account? I am curious to know sometimes using multiple accounts without informing publicly create a lot of issues later. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Titodutta, I only have one account. I had requested a change of username because for a time wanted to keep my identity semi-public, and Edjohnston suggested to choose a signature near to my username, either Caballero (which means Hidalgo, Knight) or Historiador (historian), but to make sure that people could trace back my comments, I chose to keep them both. Let me find the diffs for the change of username. Caballero// Historiador    ☊  18:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to a screenshot of the email I received approving the username change. Here is another informing about the change in my user-page. This is my former user page with the info that it has been changed. Please, let me know what else can help to satisfy your curiosity.  Caballero// Historiador    ☊  19:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was talking about WP:ALTACCN, anyway, it should not be a problem here. --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Titodutta, I just requested a change of name. If I read the info correctly, there is no problem, isn't? Now, I continued reading and learned about WP:FAMILY. My son has an active WP account and he usually writes from home too. There is also a colleague who writes occasionally from my IP. What should I do about it? Caballero// Historiador    ☊  19:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You may or may not disclose it on your userpage (even if you disclose, I don't think yo should give user account details also, that's too much personal information). But if an WP:SPI start against any of these accounts, at that time it might be slightly difficult. However you don't need to worry, I feel. You have already written about it above. On the other hand, I am a Wikipedia trainer in real life too, I use same WiFi/IP address with dozen of other users regularly. Tito Dutta (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reassurance and explanations. I am open to your suggestions for continuing with the course. Cheers, Caballero// Historiador    ☊  20:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is already 2:09 am here, Tomorrow I'll move this page following your username, and resume this training. --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Help in thinking of the best route
Dear I hope you are doing well. Whenever you have the time, I would appreciate your thoughts about what is going on with the Haitian Revolution's article and user WaldoHappy. Thanks. Cheers, Caballero/<font color= "#145073">/ <font color= "#006E0D">Historiador    ☊  15:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know about any policy or guideline that states "citations should be avoided in lead". There are thousands of articles including featured articles where you'll find citations in lead, but as lead generally summarizes an article, if something is discussed in body with citation, the same citation may be avoided in lead. About which scholars recognize as "a world-historical process,, I have a couple of questions a) which scholars, where did they claim so? b) do you have citation for this? You may see WP:Weasel. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Tito, thanks for your response and for reading about the case. From my perspective, the issue behind this mini-conflict boils down to disrupting editing (WP:DIS) and lack of etiquette (WP:EQ). Rather than making suggestions and allowing me to respond and work with them, the user, who is new to the article, interrupts the flow and discredits my work on the pretence of clarity, supported at first by two other enablers who, with the exception of a single edit, were also new to the article (WP:NINJA). I appreciate WPs iconoclastic culture (WP:ELITE), but this (WP:RANDY) is creating an unwelcoming environment. To make sense of what I am saying, it is perhaps better to start from the beginning, at least, from my context. After several weeks of vacillation, I had decided to revamp a weak and vulnerable article (one of eleven in the level-4 vital list) on an area that I teach and write about (peer-reviewed). Authorities on this topic are few, and fewer still willing to work in WP. At the heart of the difficulties with the subject is the need to identify reliable (WP:RS) sources because of the newness of this scholarship. Perhaps if we want a better article we should find a way to retain specialists (WP:EXR) by ensuring a better editing atmosphere.


 * The original justification for the user's reverts of my work was that the phrase, "A world-historical process" was meaningless and had no significant presence in the scholarship. He had done a simple Book-google search before arriving at the conclusion that it was necessary to toss aside good practices ((WP:ROWN) and for him to push for his "better" (but faulty) intro (WP:TE). I had not particular investment in the phrase, but because I was questioned on it, I proved the user otherwise, on both accounts.  In fact, I had already answered both of your questions here, where I placed some of the sources (there is many more). Keep in mind, that I had just begun to rewrite the article's intro following the suggestions here, and had merely gotten to the second paragraph when the user began an edit war (WP:EW). With the phrase he deleted, I was just quoting the latest review on the topic, as a way of summarising the current trend in the scholarship and I had even envisioned a lighter intro at the end without quoting from this article. In the discussion with the user, I had repeatedly explained that if there was a consensus against the phrase, I was willing to paraphrase it, but believed its meaning to be fundamental (I understand the issue with weasel words (WP:SLANG)). Though I am far from even completing the introduction, I eventually did withdrew it. In fact, my last edit was an attempt to show civility (WP:CIV) and willingness (WP:AVOIDEDITWAR) to reach consensus (WP:CIV). And yet, the user deleted my edits and inserted his wording, even when I had explained to him that it was not following the scholarship. In other words, for all his insistence, he just proved a lack of competence (WP:CIR)), in addition to a lack of (WP:CIV). Additionally, he accused me of having abandoned the discussion to justify his re-intervention, even when I had retrieved the phrase and he was the one who was supposed to have justified his disruptions. As you noticed, yesterday I asked him to leave it as it was, but he had showed no interest in collaborating. Working in such an environment is difficult.


 * Few are as familiar with the sources, and if given the time and space, I can rewrite this article in two weeks while accepting that it belongs to everybody (WP:OWN) and that it is a work in progress (WP:IMPERFECT). Then, it would be a matter of reviewing (WP:RG), improving, and maintaining it. So, I thought a route could be to petition the admins for the chance to work with it but without disruptive editing. In other words, to have the opportunity to write without having to prove each one of my word choices even before I had completed a section (WP:PCPP?). A similar proposal could be to request a special collaboration (WP:CO) with the purpose of getting this article off the ground. Though I just asked the few students of mine who are still active during the holidays to stay away from this dispute, I could set this article as a focus for one of my classes this semester (it starts in two weeks). I have done similarly with smaller articles. Alternatively, I could request both a "Third Option," and a dispute resolution. One for the content, and the other for the ways in which this user has intervened in the article. These suggestions were just to start the conversation; I am open to the others you may have.  Cheers,  Caballero<font color= "#003878">/<font color= "#145073">/ <font color= "#006E0D">Historiador    ☊  23:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Read
Hello, could you please these two pages: WP:3RR and WP:BRD? Feel free to ask if you have any question. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * On the reading: Tito Dutta, as you can imagine, I have read these pages several times in search for answers to specific issues, but I re-read them today with the purpose of discussing them with you. In regards to the WP:BRD, (more an strategy than a rule) it seems as a trigger-solution to a deadlock by finding a "VIP," and engaging this user (and whoever follows)-- with no intention of reverting back to your (trigger) change. In other words, the user using BRD should assume that whatever she/he is writing is sort of bait to attract conversation, which may lead to a dispute resolution forum, and is not a statement that would likely stay in the text (of course, if it stays, "lucky you"). The page warns about its misuse; the moment the user who began the process reverts to the bait-statement, it ceased to follow the BRD. Understandably! In my opinion, this "solution" is an acceptance of the primacy of the human interaction in Wikipedia. Accurate (fair?) data is important, but involvement is more. That means that if topic refers to people with little Internet connection or little free time to spend in Wikipedia, it may be governed by those who are in a higher position of power over them. In regards to the WP:3RR, it is a clear line, which passing it means you have obviously violated an expectation. This is rather useful since in the heat of the moment it is easy to revert without much judgment or patience. It requires some distance from the subject. The rule, however, does not preclude other forms of warring. Warring can also be traced back to a history of gradual or slow reverts-- slow-motion type of edits warring. Much, I think, is related to the user's record, measured through perceived attitudes, sense of article-ownership and willingness (or lack of it) to collaborate. Watching the edit warring forum was illuminating. I found the most interesting thing: users admitting to their uncontrollable propensities to revert. I could not have imagined how Wikipedia could have attracted so many users with OC. In fact, it seems that most users landing at the forum have some measure of it (which is not always an unfavorable trait). At this moment, I have no question about these rules/strategies since I have already thought much about them and seen them in action in various settings, but I welcome yours. Cheers, Caballero<font color= "#003878">/<font color= "#145073">/ <font color= "#006E0D">Historiador    ☊  18:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Question. I think I have come up with a question. Given the proliferation of editors who use the WP:BRD strategy to simply change things in articles with information which they deem wrong without passing through the appropriate channels of discussing issues in the article's Talk Pages, how come there has not been an essay written about driveby-content-erasing/changing? These are mostly editors who read sections of the articles in passing and make non-copy-editing changes (mostly blanking or drastically changing the content) without regard of the editors who have been working on it? It is common sense to discuss issues in the Talk Page, and use WP:BRD only for stagnation. But I have seen the other practice more common. Perhaps WP:DRBYER?. Caballero<font color= "#003878">/<font color= "#145073">/ <font color= "#006E0D">Historiador    ☊  13:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope you are doing well. Would you let me know about the reading and what is the next step? Thanks. Caballero<font color="#145073">/ Historiador ⎌  15:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the proliferation of editors who use the WP:BRD strategy to simply change things in articles with information which they deem wrong without passing through the appropriate channels of discussing issues in the article's Talk Pages, how come there has not been an essay written about driveby-content-erasing/changing -- that's a good question. Editors should always follow the standard channels. If any other editor does not follow standard procedure/channels, those should be reported. Do you participate in WP:BLPN, WP:EWNB discussion? --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. I have been dragged to the WP:AN3, and I have brought a couple too, but I have not been on the other side, I mean as an uninvolved discussant yet. I have not bee here WP:BLPN yet, but I am always discussing the issue, as you can now see in my Talk Page, as a result of STiki work. But my concern was more with the way that well-intended editors enter on a page, unfamiliar to them, and change things because it seems to them that they are not correct and only by a slight appearance. This is not about editors guarding against vandalism or disruptive editing, but about they thinking that they understand the topic well enough to change the article against people who know better. And the most difficult to deal with are veteran editors and adms. For example,. It spilled over the article's Talk page and it was draining. This event is not isolated. I have been involved with many cases like this one lately, in which a few well-intended editors just produce a storm out of an issue that is unfamiliar to them. My practice is that when I see something weird in an article, I go to the TP and raise the issue there. If there is no reaction, then I approach the article and make reference to the comment in the TP. Boldness should not be disruptive. What do you think? Caballero<font color="#145073">/ Historiador ⎌  14:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)