User:Omicronpersei8/Counter-vandalism practices
 |
This is not a neutral article. The author provides this solely as an essay of personal intent and rationale for certain actions. |
Statement
My purpose for being an RC patroller on Wikipedia is unclear to me. Either I like the false sense of authority it brings, or I am simply satiating my obsessive tendencies. Many people have an addiction to Wikipedia, and this is true even for people who rarely contribute actual content, like myself. Either way, I like to preserve order, and I like seeing that done in an orderly way.
I also really like Wikipedia, as it has helped me out in a lot of situations. I'm not an expert on anything, but I feel compelled to improve the site in some way, so counter-vandalism it is. This is more of a statement of admiration than one of perceived indebtedness.
I'm a secretive, nervous person. I am happy to help out, but I take some caution at giving out personal details or contact information. I am especially paranoid about attending conventions involving people I know only through the Internet. Please don't be mad at me about these things -- that also that makes me nervous.
Confession
I admit it: I am very annoyed by vandals, and I sometimes take delight in seeing them blocked. I know this is a biased perspective, but I try to keep a level head most of the time. I lose my cool sometimes, though -- when a blatant vandal pretends like he or she has done no wrong and deserves to edit Wikipedia however they want, for example, I don't feel obligated to shower them with muffins and puppies. I do not, however, intend to bring a vandal-hating spirit to Wikipedia, nor do I do countervandalism in order to harass or block other users.
Usual methods
I am a recent changes patroller, which means I patrol recent changes. Because non-logged in users are more likely to commit vandalism, I almost always filter out the logged in ones. I do this because although sock puppets and newly registered vandals may get a free pass from me, I feel that they are easily lost among all the legitimate edits. When combining both logged in edits and IP edits in one list, the anonymous vandalisms are even more easily drowned.
On patrol, I use my custom quickie link page at User:Omicronpersei8/RC, because I'm still relatively new and don't have everything committed to memory, and also VandalProof as of late. It's a good tool, but when I use it, it is on my slow Windows machine. This explains some of my erroneous edits and my occasional sluggishness. My faster machines run Linux, but I have been unable so far to get VandalProof running on them via Wine.
I use Google frequently when I have a question about an article's or section's notability. When I resort to Google, I usually do not go to any other lengths to establish credibility. Some will argue that a Google search is not a comprehensive enough tool to certify that a subject deserves a Wikipedia article. I disagree, because I feel the Internet has been around long enough to be a reliable echo not only of popular interests, but of almost anything of any note.
I feel I know how to perform Google searches correctly, so when my query fails to turn up at least a few hundred results, I bring the subject's validity into question.
Mistakes I know I have made
Here is an imcomplete list of mistakes I have made and will make again. Please contact me when I do.
Naive drive-by judgments
Sometimes I will see an edit that is apropos but does not seem it at first glance; one example is when I reverted what I thought was a racist, nonsensical addition to an article, not realizing, even after giving dictionary.com a cursory glance, that it was a completely valid edit. I honestly do try to examine edits before I do away with them, but sometimes I do not invest enough time or insight into my process. In my defense, it's a type of occasional mistake most people make.
Inappropriate deletion tagging
On occasion, I take my concerns to the talk page. More often, if it is an article with no links, sections, methods of verifying claims, one which makes express usage of the first person, or one which resembles an advertisement, I put it up for deletion.
Historically, I have been more inclined towards speedy deletes than proposed deletions or AFDs. Naturally, not all of my nominations have been successful. This means I have either incorrectly labelled a legitimate article as illegitimate, or have used the wrong means of doing away with an article. It has not been a rare event for me to request speedy deletion for an article that should be discussed first, or vice versa.
Assuming bad faith
I am certainly not infallible in my viewpoints, and after dealing with vandals for a while, one tends to temporarily lose one's sense of humor. I have my own opinions about what is and isn't a valid edit, and when I feel someone has not made a decent improvement in his or her edits, it is easier than usual to assume that an individual does not have Wikipedia's best interests in mind. Vandalism has several different forms, one of which is stealthy inclusion of what may be considered nonsense. I tend to justify myself in holding opinions such as these, but I do regret when I mistake a valid editor for a vandal. In truth, I do need more work at assuming good faith. I try to be discerning, sensible, and perceptive; sometimes, this causes me to instead be rude, condemning, untrusting, temperamental, or egotistical. The best way to deal with me in such an instance is to either talk to me about it or report me if that has failed.
Erroneous reverting of blankings
One of the first lines of WP:ES states:
Please include edit comments when you blank. God knows I don't include edit summaries with all of my edits, sometimes even when I should, but simply removing someone's addition altogether needs to be qualified.
Generally, the most research I will do when I see an IP blanking is search back through the user's history for that article alone. I can easily ignore one section being removed without an edit comment, but two trips my alarm. Large, multi-section deletions are often deserving of reversion almost without question.
Conclusion: A plea for understanding
Why do people get so angry when I revert their edits? Either because they put time and effort into something that I did away with in the click of a button, or because they resent having their claims questioned, possibly as a result of having a large ego. I believe the first situation is the more frequent one.
I try not to revert without a valid reason, and anyway, edits are kept in history for you to restore at your heart's content, as long as WP:3RR is observed. I try to avoid letting edit wars become a habit, and probably won't do a second revert, unless I am dealing with something that obviously should be removed. I am usually happy to discuss my actions, and I will usually admit when I am wrong, as long as civility is maintained.
In my experiences, most IP edits to Wikipedia are to articles in the human interest or entertainment categories, and thus objectivity is especially hard to find. Perhaps relatedly, most IP edits do not include sources with their claims or additions.
Most of Wikipedia is unsourced, so one must use his or her wits to sort out the gold from the nonsense. Luckily, most of Wikipedia is gold.
-- Omicronpersei8
- Updated 19:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)