User talk:Catfish Jim and the soapdish/Cyberpower678/Mentoring/Archive

Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Hi Cyberpower, please outline and explain the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  21:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and not an advertising platform. It is made from secondary reliable sources to provide as accurate as possible information to billions of users around the world.
 * 2) Wikipedia is always written from a neutral perspective. This is to allow readers to make their own opinions about a subject or article.  Writing it in a non-neutral point of view may promote a subject and advertise them which goes against the first pillar.  In extreme cases it may start get people to believe that promotion and may start them to believing false truths.
 * 3) Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute. Anybody is allowed to edit as long as the edit is justifiable and reasonable.  Respect copyright rules.  Since Wikipedia allows for free distribution of its content copyrighted images will hinder this and therefore is not accepted.
 * 4) Wikipedia editors should always be respectful and civil towards other editors at all times. Misconduct is not taken well by other editors and may even result in consequence.  Always be calm when in a dispute of some sort.
 * 5) Wikipedia does not have set rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not there to be followed by the letter.  It is there as a general guideline for acting correctly on Wikipedia.
 * — cyberpower ( Talk to Me )( Contributions ) 22:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Countering vandalism and warning templates
Okay, here are some more questions... I'm looking for answers written in your own words, not cut and paste answers or close paraphrases. Please also link to policy pages.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  14:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Please explain what vandalism is and how it differs from an unconstructive edit.
 * A: An unconstructive edit is one that disrupts Wikipedia in a way that the information may look correct but really isn't and it was purposefully placed there to fool readers. Vandalism on the other hand is when editors place blatant nonsense on pages like "Zombies are going to come and eat your brains out!", replacing content with nonsense like "poop", blanking extraordinary amounts of content from pages without an edit summary to justify why, or even merely placing ":)" or "which is awesome." on pages.
 * No. Vandalism is any edit that is made to deliberately damage the page it is on. Deliberate inclusion of false or misleading information would also fall into this category. The difference between vandalism and an "unconstructive edit" is that we are assuming good faith in the latter case. We should always default to an assumption of good faith, so unless it involves blatant vandalism, we should initially assume no deliberate malice. This is illustrated in the warning templates.
 * Ok.— cyberpower ( Talk to Me )( Contributions ) 11:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) How can we distinguish between a mistake and malicious vandalism?
 * A: There is a simple way to tell if something is a mistake or malicious. If it is done once and it's been reverted and never happens again, it's considered a mistake.  If it's reverted and it continues to happen and you start issuing progressing caution to warning templates and it still happens, it is vandalism and it should be dealt with properly.
 * Yes, often we cannot tell if an edit that apparently damages a page constitutes vandalism or a mistake. Following WP:AGF, we should assume error rather than malice if we are not sure.
 * 1) Can you explain the different levels used in warning templates?
 * A: No I can't. J/K. A level 1 warning is merely a caution to editors phrased in a nice way as to not scare the editor off. A level 2 warning is a bit more stern but it shouldn't scare off an editor.  It is to let them know that their edits are starting to become disruptive to Wikipedia.  A level 3 warning is issued when a user consistently demonstrates acts of disruption or vandalism.  It warms them that if they continue, they may get blocked.  Level 4 warning is a final warning template used to let the user know that their disruption will no longer be tolerated and if they continue, they will be blocked from editing w/o further notice.  Level 4i warning is an only warning template used in cases where a user is committing only vandalism in a severe manner, or completely destroying talk pages or articles.  This template is rarely used by me as I seldom see such acts.  It is let the user know that their acts of blatant vandalism or destruction of Wikipedia is not tolerated they will be blocked without further notice.  Keep in mind that these templates are not limited to vandalism and that these levels of warning templates can be used for personal attacks and other categories.
 * 1) When should we use the different levels?
 * A: A level 1 is issued to an editor who is obviously being non-constructive. If they defy the template and they continue to vandalize, a level 2 is issued.  If they still continue, a level 3 is issued and then a level 4 after no change in behavior.  See above answer for when to use 4i.
 * 1) Should we apply warning templates equally for all users regardless of experience or whether they are registered users or IP editors?
 * It doesn't matter if they register or not, it's all about the experience. Although I cannot see if an IP editor is experienced or not, a can judge with registered users.  If a registered user is new to Wikipedia and creates a disruptive edit,  it's OK to assume it was a mistake and give the editor a nudge to let them while reverting a couple of those edits and let them see the reverts.  If this user is experienced, I would start out with a level 1 template and progress from there.
 * Pretty much, but bear in mind that warnings have, to some extent, a shelf life. If there is a two month old level two warning on the user's talk page, I would consider it stale and start at level 1 again. In the case of IP users, we have to give even more leeway. One IP address may be shared by a number of users, and you should bear in mind that you may not be warning the same person. It's worth also considering Don't template the regulars. The other thing to guard against is adding a higher level warning too soon after the previous one. Too often at WP:AIV I see people who have been reported after receiving level 1, 2, 3 and 4 warnings, and when you check their contribution history, you find that their last edit was made before the first warning was issued. Users must be given time to digest a warning and any subsequent warning must be made after they've had time to read the warning.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  10:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed.— cyberpower ( Talk to Me )( Contributions ) 11:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)