User:WormTT/Adopt/Cucumber Mike

One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to eloquently sum up what we're here for.

• 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.

Once you get your head around these five pillars, you will be a Wikipedian and a good one at that. All 5 are covered in my adoption school, though at different lengths. Be aware that I don't know everything and I would doubt anyone who said they did.

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.

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 whilst "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, I would not expect it to be authoritative on their full size equivalent.

A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This is a very rare exception – so self publishing is generally considered a no-no. 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.

Any questions or would you like to try the test?

Well, that all seems fairly straightforward so far, so I think I'd like to have a go at the test please! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This test is going to be based on questions. One word "Yes" or "No" answers are unacceptable. I want to see some evidence of a thought process. There's no time limit - answer in your own words and we'll talk about your answers.

1) Q - You have just discovered from a friend that the new Ford Escort is only going to be available in blue. Can you add this to the Ford Escort article and why?

A - No. Information needs to come from a reliable source - in this case something like Autocar - rather than some bloke you happen to know. And anyway, he's about 15 years out of date :-) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Only 15 years? I was thinking more like 100! But yes, you're right, the information needs to come from a reliable source.

2) Q - A mainstream newspaper 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. Whether or not I believe it's racist is beside the point - I might be wrong. It shouldn't go in either article. However, if another newspaper writes an article on 'Newspaper X publishes racist cartoon' then it would be suitable, but the reference should cite the second paper's article. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Even if another newspaper picks up on it, it may not be worth mentioning, as the "racist" newspaper would have a long history, and bringing the small cartoon up might be considered as giving something undue weight.

3) Q - You find an article that shows that people in the state of Ohio eat more butternut squashes than anywhere in the world and ranks each of the United States by squashes per head. Interestingly you find another article that ranks baldness in the United States and they are almost identical! Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia? Perhaps the baldness article or the butternut squash article?

A- Well, the information from either article might be useful in the right place. But I suspect you're asking whether it would be possible to add information to an article saying 'butternut squashes cause baldness'; that wouldn't be acceptable because it's synthesis - something I have deduced independently. If a reliable source has made the same conclusion then it could be added. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted, yes, synthesis and original research isn't something we want on wikipedia. We just re-publish what's already been said - The sum of human knowledge.

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? Would you consider BBC news to be a reliable source on its rival, ITV?

A - Ok. This I'm not sure on. My gut feeling would be that BBC News is a reliable source on all information - they go to great lengths to demonstrate their independence on all matters. However, I can see how a body funded by UK taxpayers might be considered an inappropriate source for the first article, and companies in competition with each other could be considered inappropriate in the case of the second. My likely approach would be to try to source the information from elsewhere if possible, although I realise that doesn't really answer the question. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's fine to be unsure! I really haven't given you enough information. In some situations, yes, they'd be reliable sources, in others, they'd be partisan. You have to read the source, and other sources and use editorial judgement. So yep, you've answered correctly.

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

A- Depends what it says. A simple statement of fact, like 'Ben and Jerry's is an food manufacturer which makes lots of ice-cream out of milk and chocolate and stuff' would be fine as per WP:SELFSOURCE. An opinion or a comment on something more controversial - 'Ben and Jerry's make the world's best ice-cream which tastes of rainbows and unicorn tears whilst Haagen Dazs smells like wee' - shouldn't be used unless confirmed by a reliable, external source. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly.

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

A- Maybe. Presumably a 'forum official' could be expected to speak with the authorisation of the Telegraph, and therefore they would fairly represent the paper's view on the matter. I'd want to check that, though, to make sure that it is someone speaking on their behalf and not some random person acting as a forum moderator. If it is an official of the paper, writing on one of the paper's web pages, and doesn't contradict things the paper has said before in editorials, I'd probably say it's ok as a reliable source. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest anything on a community forum is a bad idea, even if it is an "official". It's hard to know how the forum is set up, moderators are unlikely to be official spokesmen.

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.amazon.co.uk/ or an "iTunes" link being used in a music related article?

A - For what purpose? I don't see a problem with their reliability, so as a source for an album's track listing for example I'd say that's fine. I'd be careful that the article isn't using the blurb to source statements - things like 'Best album in the history of the universe (NME)' would be better coming from the original source, and other statements clearly from the artist or publisher about how good the album is probably shouldn't be used. Other than the track listing, in fact, I can't really think why you'd use such a link. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Track listing, release date, any plain factual information, but nothing which might be considered an opinion. All good

8) Q - Would you have any issue with using the About Us page on Xerox as a source for the history section of the Xerox article.

A - Again, for simple facts - 'Xerox makes photocopiers', 'Xerox made its first photocopier in 1297' - I'd say it's fine, but comments about the quality of their or others' products would be better coming from elsewhere. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep

9) 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 - According to QI he's right :) (And the fact that typing 'QI s' into Google immediately autocompletes on 'QI sky bronze' suggests I'm not the first of your adoptees to point that out!)
I'd probably like to find a source in order to try to keep the argument to a minimum. I'd prefer to do that than to just say 'well it's obvious I'm right'. I dare say you don't strictly need a source (I think I recall a guideline somewhere to that effect) but it's probably best to err on the side of too many reliable sources than too few. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You're my first adoptee to have seen that episode of QI! That's exactly where I got the question from, my take on the WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and WP:You do need to cite that the sky is blue essays. Generally, if any information is contentious, the onus is on the person putting the information into wikipedia. But if it's so obvious, then it should be easy to source right? Oddly, I don't think the sky is blue. It's grey out of my window today, and there was a nice pink sunset last night...

All very good, I think you're ready for the next lesson. Feel free to put any thoughts down, otherwise I'll close up and move you along. Worm^TT(talk) 16:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I enjoyed studying history at school, so I like to think I can deal with the difference between primary and secondary sources and spot the potential for bias. If I can just go back to the BBC question - the BBC would probably be my 'go to' site for sourcing news items; that is, if I come across some news story I need a cite for I'd run a search on the BBC site, regardless of the topic I was researching. That's because I would argue that they base their reputation on reporting the facts without bias. I guess the point you're making is that if there is a story in which the BBC could be accused of having a vested interest, then it would be best if it could be sourced from elsewhere (or elsewhere as well). Stop the argument before it starts by making sure the source is above suspicion. Yes?

Other than that, I think I'm good to go on. Thanks for the first lesson - thought provoking but enjoyable! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's good to hear that you've got the difference down, Wikipedia is generally considered a tertiary source, so we try not to work from primary sources. I use the Beeb as a "go to" site, it's without a doubt one of the best places for neutral journalism in my opinion. They're not perfect though, as one of my adoptees pointed out, they freely accepted the Widgery Tribunal, and do play down certain bits of information and sensationalise others. It's a skill to read an article and see the relevant information. As you say, the point I was trying to make is that even the best source can hold a bias, and it'd be better to get more sources if you can. Worm^TT(talk) 09:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

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. I have a script that reminds you to do this if you think you'll forget.
• 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.

How's the soup? --[[User:John]]
:It's great!! --[[User:Jane]]
::I made it myself! --[[User:John]]
Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Soup]]. --[[User:Jane]]
:I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]]

• 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.

Any questions?

Thanks. No questions. Bring on the test! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the conversation below:

Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In

1) Position A?

A- Rod's Mate

2) Position B?

A- Rod

3) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?

A- No. There's no way of knowing how much someone had read around WP guidelines before creating an account, or whilst editing as an IP; or maybe they're someone who's had a 'clean start'. Also, that's a fairly serious allegation to be bandying around, one that needs more evidence than just 'knowing stuff'. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A bit too easy for you? Perfect. Worm^TT(talk) 09:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. It's one of the most important lessons I teach, because not adhering to it can lead to a ban from 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.

There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. If you are having trouble with any, here's a quick reference.

Ok, now if I use a term that's not in the glossary and I don't explain, feel free to slap me. 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 the WP: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 a free 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)

1. There must be no free equivalent
2. We must ensure that the owner will not lose out by us using the work
3. Use as little as possible (the smallest number of uses and the smallest part possible used)
4. Must have been published elsewhere first
5. Meets our general standards for content
6. Meets our specific standards for that area
7. Must be used. (we can't upload something under fair use and not use it)
8. Must be useful in context. This is a sticking point, if it's not actually adding to the article, it shouldn't be used.
9. Can only be used in article space
10. 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 happened here) The publicity picture is considered replaceable fair use and so cannot be used on Wikipedia.
• 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, and therefore can't be used on Wikipedia.
• 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, take a copy of their logo, and upload it to Wikipedia. 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. So, if it meets all the other criteria as well, it can be used on Wikipedia.

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.

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.

This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations.

Well, you seem to have explained things very well. This really isn't my specialist subject, though, and I'm not very confident in spotting when something is 'fair use'. An example I've struggled with before: Say there's an article about my local town that has a picture of the old water fountain, taken from a book that's out of print but still in copyright. The picture might not have been taken by the author, so the copyright probably belongs to someone else, right? Well, let's assume that we know who that is, and we've verified that the photo itself is still copyrighted. The fountain is long gone, probably buried under a roundabout, so we decide to use the photo under fair use, since it's not reproduceable but it nicely illustrates the section about the village fountain. Now, if someone comes along and deletes that section, but keeps the photo, is it still fair use? It would seem to fail the 'useful in context' rule, since it isn't really adding anything to the article by having it there. Does that make sense, or am I overthinking this?

Apart from that, though, I'd be happy to look at some questions! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a tough subject, and you've gone into one of the more difficult situations. Your reasoning for fair use while the section was there seems good to me, but if the section gets removed - then you're exactly right, it's no longer useful in context. We may be a little slow at deleting things like that, but yes, it should be deleted. It can always be undeleted if the section is. Worm^TT(talk) 09:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?

A- Free-as-in-free-speech? Well, mostly. The text is all free, since it's licensed under CC-BY-SA. Most of the other content is free, except that which is under free use - such content can't be shared further. As for free-as-in-free-beer, yes, it's free at the point of consumption. But someone pointed out on the radio recently that everyone pays something for the internet, so maybe Wikipedia isn't free after all. But, to all intents and purposes, yes, Wikipedia is free of cost to use.

Very good, am certainly happy with that answer

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?

A- After you've taken it? :-) When the picture is available under a free license it can be uploaded to Commons.

Yep.

Q3) You find music displaying this licence [1] (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?

A- No. Although Wikimedia itself is non-commercial, the point of Commons is that the content is available to everyone for every purpose.

Good spot! I don't think I've had more than 1 of my adoptees notice that! It's a nasty question, because it's counter intuitive, but it's the way we work.

Q4) A user uploads a poster which is a composite of all the Beatles album covers. Can he do this? It is his own unique composition.

A- Maybe. It's a Derivative Work, which means it needs the Beatles' permission to be used, unless the use meets 'fair use or fair dealing'. My suggestion would be that if ALL the individual album cover pictures can be claimed to be fair-use on their own, then the poster can too, provided that the uploader tags it correctly to waive his own copyright. But it's unlikely that there is an article for which such a poster would be 'useful in context', and therefore it should not be uploaded. Maybe.

Interesting perspective. You've got all the right thought processes, and there have been long discussions over similar topics (one of the first I ever got involved in for example. My personal opinion is that it violates the minimal usage clause of the Non-free content criteria, but I'm not going to sa you're wrong, it's debateable.

Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?

A- No, unless the photographer has released it under the appropriate license. There exists the possibility to take a non-copyrighted picture of the holy father, and therefore it can't be used under fair-use.

Yep

Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?

A- If you can argue that no opportunity exists to take a subsequent photo, yes, probably.

Again, it's debateable. There's no right or wrong here.

Q7) You find an article that matches a company website About Us page exactly. What do you do? You check the talk page, and there's no evidence that the text has been released under WP:CC-BY-SA

A- Remove it. Contact the editor who added the text to ask them if they have information that the text is available under a free license. (If it is, there's a way of recording it, though I forget how exactly.) If the text is freely licensed, it can go back in, otherwise the article should be re-written using the company website as a source alongside other sources.

Yep.

Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?

A- Not sure what a 'cut and paste move' is. Can you clarify?

Sure, You want to move the Doom Bar article to Doom bar, so you press edit, cut the text and paste it into the other article. That's a cut-and-paste move, rather than using the "move" button Worm^TT(talk) 11:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, since the CC-BY-SA license requires attribution, and doing a move like that will lose the history of who wrote bits of the article it will mean that you can't give them recognition if the text is used elsewhere.

Bingo

Q9) 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-File:James-hunt-03.jpg

Exactly.

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.

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 Rerverts 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 editor's 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.

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

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.

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

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). There's also WP:DRN which is fairly informal but focuses more on content disputes. The editors involved with all of these processes specialise in resolving disputes.

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.

I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected its 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.

If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards that you can get some help.

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.

No, I'm fine with that, and ready when you are for the test. Thanks

1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss?

A- If there is something that can be improved, either by the addition of information, modifying text for readability or removing things that are unhelpful, editors should be Bold - just go ahead and do it. If (when?) someone disagrees with the changes, they should revert the edit and start a discussion on the talk page, where both editors should debate and agree on the best way to proceed.

Exactly. There's far too much to do on WP to discuss everything before hand.

2) Assuming that person A puts in an edit, person B reverts, person A reverts... and so on, but both stop short of WP:3RR (the bright line)... who wins the edit war? Trick question alert!

A- No-one wins the war! Both editors are in the wrong for not following BRD. After step 2, person B should have initiated a discussion on the talk page, and person A should have taken part. Time for someone to knock heads together.

Again, all good

3) What is vandalism?

A- Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. :) As distinct from well-intentioned but unsuccessful editing, vandalism involves someone going out of their way to cause disruption.

Text book answer ;)

4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?

A- WP:EAR is [intended to be] for editors to request technical or linguistic help with the physical act of editing. WP:RFC invites the community to comment on disputes between editors or groups of editors in matters of conduct or article editing, whereas WP:3O deals with a subset of those disputes, namely ones involving two editors. In practice, I think there is a great deal of overlap between the three, and they generally carry out much the same functions. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Another great answer. Well, I can't say you don't get this lesson. Applying it all when things get heated is where it gets difficult.