User talk:Kacper IV/Archive 1

Sockpuppet investigation

The checkuser result was "Unrelated"; see below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LoganTheWatermelon, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Kacper IV, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Hijab. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the sockpuppet investigation. You kind of were in the right place at the wrong time.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

If you ever need anything, please give me a shout. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! That was really stressful, I did not think Wikipedia was about proving I am myself. Kacper IV (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

What happened is that ToBeFree and I had some trouble explaining counter-vandalism work to a new editor who ended up getting blocked for reverting edits that weren't vandalism. It was almost at that exact time that you popped up, and ToBeFree thought you may have been the same person. You might also find going through a Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy course to be somewhat helpful, but you seem to be doing fine so far with your edits from what I can tell. Actually, I really don't see an arguement for why you shouldn't get WP:CONFIRMed status at this point (since you're obviously not a sockpuppet).
TBF, can you make that happen when you get the chance? (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the academy link, I will read through stuff there. Kacper IV (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

An overdue welcome

The welcome may be pretty late, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Kacper IV. While you've already been around a while, I previously did not properly thank you for your contributions. You have been successful in finding your way around, but I should definitely provide the following links that help editors get the most out of Wikipedia.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to write a great article
• Task Center full of ideas
• Community portal with a newspaper
• The Wikipedia Adventure, a science-fiction-themed tutorial.

I hope that, despite the trouble I am sorry for, you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{help me}} together with a question here on your talk page.

Again, welcome. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Kacper IV, a technical check has been performed by a CheckUser, and there is no technical evidence to substantiate the suspection. Your account has been marked as "Unrelated" to the person I wrongly believed you to be.

While I hope that, when having a look at LoganTheWatermelon's contributions and yours, it is understandable what caused my suspicion, it turned out to be false, and I am sorry for having made a false accusation against you.

In my next messages below, I will do what I omitted in error:

• Welcoming you to the community, although it would be understandable to me if you reject the late attempt to bury the hatchet;
• Explaining why I believed your edits to justify a block if they had come from LoganTheWatermelon;
• Properly asking you what I incorrectly believed to already have asked before.

Best regards
~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree: I was clearly doing something wrong at "Recent changes" if it caused you alarm. I realize that at first I was way too fast. And then I didn't revert other edits by the same IP to the same page. It seems I was doing something wrong at each turn. Are all the rules on "Recent changes" written down somewhere? Kacper IV (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Hmm. Good question; the closest (next to the rollback guideline I have linked two sections below now) may be the editing policy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with vandalism

I'd like to start with a clarification that I had previously omitted. I had omitted the following message because I had incorrectly believed to already have given you similar advice in the past. While you may now already have looked this up yourself, or may have known it all the time, here is an overdue explanation from myself.

On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism.
— Wikipedia:Vandalism (emphasis reduced)

It should be noted that even experienced editors sometimes forget about this. Interpreting a disruptive action as "vandalism" is easy but often incorrect.

There is a tool that can be used to quickly revert vandalism, "rollback". For single edits, this is essentially the same as clicking "undo" on an edit and immediately saving the page with the default edit summary. For multiple edits by one user, this is equivalent to clicking "edit" on the original revision, then saving the page with a summary of "Reverted edits by ExampleVandal (talk) to last version by ExampleEditor".

Both rollback and its manually executed equivalents can be misused. The guideline for rollback is WP:ROLLBACKUSE. While this technically does not apply to your previous reverts, it does explain possible issues with them. The main point that applies to any revert is that edit summaries should be used for explanation, unless there is really no explanation necessary. While explanations may often seem to be unnecessary, the reverted user and uninvolved editors will often see this differently.

In the investigation, which has turned out to be the incorrect place for the clarification, I have provided a list of reverts that may be seen as problematic. To answer an indirect question from there, no, editors are not required to do anything. However – and this is why I can't fulfill MJL's wish that was voiced above – especially when editors are whitelisted or implicitly trusted for their amount and duration of participation, incompletely reverting vandalism can make the situation worse. This is because new editors' edits appear in various lists for checking, but they disappear once an experienced user has undone a part of them. I can't say for sure, but I'd guess that the vandalism would have been completely removed by someone else pretty quickly if you hadn't partially inadvertently preserved it. And that was without being autoconfirmed yet.

The edits of who turned out to be someone else have been much more problematic than yours, and they led to a well-justified block that has expired by now. If the same behavior resumed, the editor would probably be indefinitely blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. The line between an acceptable learning curve and hopelessly unfixable disruption is blurry; the advice at User talk:LoganTheWatermelon is at least partially relevant here.

I think "too early, too much, too fast" may be a good summary. Take your time, feel free to ask questions whenever they arise, and all of this will probably look incredibly distant and irrelevant in a few months.

Best regards
~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I have much reading to do. After I read up, I'll try again. For sure I need to:

1. Avoid being hasty with reverts.
2. Use edit summaries more, if something is not obvious.
3. If I intend to revert on a page, I should check to see if there were other edits to the page and examine them too.

I am sure I am missing more, but I will try to read first before editing more. Kacper IV (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Kacper IV, I raise my hat to you and this answer. If you'd ever like to request rollback permission, which may arguably turn out to be difficult for reasons partially not even caused by you in the near future, please drop me a note on my talk page so I can have a look at your contributions and probably endorse the request at WP:PERM/R. I obviously can't grant it myself after all the involvement, but I'll definitely put in a good word for you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)