User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Final/JHUbal27

Final Exam for JHUbal27
Congratulations on reaching your final exam. Please follow all instructions carefully.

'''This exam was begun at 17:37, March 30. It will end at 17:37,''' .

Practical Exam
Following are your tasks for the practical exam. When a task is completed, replace the Not done template with Done. You may also use Doing to indicate a task that is currently underway. All tasks must be marked completed before the time stated above. Even if you have done these tasks in the past, please do them again during this exam period.


 * ✅ Patrol five new pages in new page patrol. Post diffs here:
 * (CSD, deleted under A7- unremarkable person)
 * Trust the sysop's judgment.
 * (added cleanup tags, ended up sending it to AFD)
 * Well, this is a tricky one; for one, the AfD discussion has gone on for longer than a week. You did the right thing, probably, but we will see.
 * (CSD, deleted under G11- unambiguous advertising)
 * Honestly, I’ve never heard of that admin, but I suppose I will trust his judgment.
 * (CSD, originally A5, changed to A10, redirected to Shoe)
 * Not sure about this one; a little questionable…A5? Not sure that’s applicable.
 * (CSD, deleted under A7- unremarkable band)
 * OK.
 * Overall, for your efforts in NPP, you have earned a 23/25.
 * ✅ Nominate at least one article for deletion in AFD with a well-reasoned nomination explaining why the article should be deleted. Post the link to the debate(s) here: (I did two because I felt like it.)
 * 
 * Discussed above.
 * (PRODding could have been an option, but I just sent it to AFD)
 * Good nomination rationale, though if deletion was not your goal, then you could have started a different type of discussion. And I always accept going above and beyond...


 * ✅ Participate in at least two AFD debates with well-reasoned comments. Diffs:
 * 
 * Some thought in your answer; so far no consensus, but I appreciate your citation of policy. Always good!
 * 
 * That must be a place for some nerds! A festival celebrating asymmetry? Oh well, I am a nerd too. 
 * Never mind, this is a music festival, not a festival with everything asymmetrical. 
 * Decent explanation too.


 * ✅ Tag at least one article for speedy deletion. Diff: (CSD, deleted under G12- copyright infringement)
 * Not sure about it, but if it was copyright infringement, then it is copyright infringement, and it needs to go MIA ASAP.


 * Overall for your efforts in deletion, you receive an 18/20.


 * ✅ Cleanup at least two articles (e.g., resolve at least one problem noted with a maintenance tag and remove said maintenance tag) Diffs:
 * (major copyedit)
 * Good cleanup job. Have you joined the guild of copyeditors? If not, that’s something you may want to consider.
 * (added categories)
 * Thanks for categorizing.


 * Cleanup is pretty straightforward, but often goes ignored. Good job! 10/10

Diffs:
 * ✅ Revert at least eight instances of vandalism and warn the vandals appropriately. Post only the diffs of the reversions themselves, not the warnings.
 * 
 * Good.
 * 
 * Hmm. Perhaps a test edit; correct warning level, just wrong type.
 * 
 * Not entirely sure that this is vandalism at all…remember, vandalism is anything done in bad faith.
 * 
 * Right on. But why did you give him a last warning, and then an only warning template?
 * 
 * A violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP? Yes. Vandalism? Possibly not; assuming you reverted as a BLP issue, then you used an incorrect warning template. This one is not one of your better pieces of work.
 * 
 * Aren’t you a little young for articles like that? I certainly don’t want to see that…
 * (What happened to Clue Bot?!)
 * There’s some clear cut vandalism. I would have gone with at least a level two, perhaps even a level three warning template, though. He has a history. And in answer to your question, I believe Cluebot only will revert an editor once per article; it will not edit war with a user.
 * 
 * OK.


 * Overall, vandalism is somewhere where, to steal some terms from academia, you are proficient, but not advanced. 33/40.


 * ✅ Join a Wiki-Project of your choosing. Diff: Joined WikiProject Schools
 * OK. 5/5


 * ✅ Extra credit! Upload a file of some kind (picture, sound, etc.) with correct licensing information to either Wikipedia using the File Upload Wizard or the Wikimedia Commons. Add the item to an article and post the diff of you adding it to the article here.
 * Cool! I was never good at Legos and K’Nex, but you evidently are Good job! +5

In the event you attempt to do a task above but a bot beats you the the task a ridiculously obscene number of times, please make a note of that here. I've tried to do similar tasks before and been incredibly frustrated by the automatic bots. You should be able to demonstrate that you put an honest effort into completing the task.
 * 91/100

Written Exam

 * 1) What is consensus, and how does it apply to Wikipedia policies?
 * A: Consensus is the way the decisions are made on Wikipedia . It applies to even the simplest of decisions, like editing articles, to major decisions like the addition of a new policy. When adding proposing a new policy, it is important to know that consensus is not a vote. It is an approval from the community with strong arguments in a discussion. Unamity is not required, but most editors need to approve of a policy before it is added. Even when previous consensus is reached, a policy is subject to change or be removed as time goes by. New consensus can always be reached through discussion or boldly. Another important point is that the Wikimedia Foundation and other superior offices Like what? have the right to add or change important policies without community consensus.
 * Good. Just a few minor points of inquiry. 5/5
 * 1) You add a PROD tag to an article as it doesn't seem to be notable, but it gets removed by the author ten minutes later. You don't believe he's addressed the notability concerns, so what is one step you could take from here?
 * A: After a PROD tag is removed, it should not be replaced. The next step is sending it WP:AFD with a nomination like "PROD tag removed by author. Still no evidence of notability." Leave a message on the talk page of the author explaining why.
 * √ (ok that's a square root symbol, but you get the idea) 5/5
 * 1) Flip that situation around. You come across a PROD that you don't think should be deleted, and remove the tag. Your edit is reverted and you get a nasty note on your talk page. What do you do?
 * A: I would remove the note, first of al. Then, I would leave a message on the editor's talk page, and even with the nasty note, assume good faith. It would be something like, "Please do not personally attack me. Personal attacks are unacceptable on Wikipedia. You may disagree with me and that's okay, but do not comment on me. [(Not included) Depends on what you mean by "nasty note", which is vague.] Next time, comment on the content of the article and do not replace the PROD tag. Send it to WP:AFD, where editors argue discuss whether or not an article should be deleted. When you nominate the article for deletion, explain why you think the article should be deleted. Thank you.  JHU  bal  27  04:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)"
 * OK. 5/5
 * 1) Define vandalism. When is it appropriate to report a vandal to administration?
 * A: Vandalism is any intentional attempt, no matter how subtle, to harm or destroy our website. For example, blanking a page is vandalism if the user replaces it with crude content or something similar. A user who blanks their own talk page is not vandalism. Other examples of vandalism are advertising Not necessarily; could be a misunderstanding of rules and deliberate factual errors. It is important to assume good faith except in the most obvious cases of vandalism. Users who have a vandalism-only account and have been warned after the level 4 or 4im warning should be reported to WP:AIV, where administrators will take care of them.
 * Not all of your examples are necessarily vandalism. Remember, vandals can change. I believe I was a vandal once as either an IP or an old account that I've long since forgotten. Granted, that was at least 4-5 years ago, but still... vandals can change. 4.5/5
 * 1) You mark a non-notable article for speedy deletion under CSD A7. Moments later, you notice in Recent Changes that the page has been blanked by the author. What do you do?
 * A: First, make sure the author was the substantial contributor of the article. Then, mark the article for speedy deletion under G7, assuming the author requested deletion by blanking the page.
 * √ 5/5
 * 1) You revert something thinking it's vandalism, but you get a rather irate reply on your talk page: "That's not vandalism! This is a serious fact covered my many research articles! How dare you accuse me of (insert type of vandalism here, as well as more complaints)!" You check, and sure enough, he's right. What do you do?
 * A: First of all, I would apoligize and ask the person to not personally attack me they are talking about content, not about you . I would ask them next time to assume good faith. I thought that was vandalism, so I acted in good faith by reverting it.
 * Make sure you fix the problem as well. 3.5/5
 * 1) You found an image on a website of a person that could be really useful in an article you're writing about them. The website doesn't say the image is copyrighted, so what should you do to upload it to Wikipedia?
 * A: Nearly every single image on websites is copyrighted (excluding most Wikimedia Commons images, which are free). The copyright information can be found at the bottom of the webpage, usually. I've even seen copyright information on the image itself! When in doubt, look for © or ® or "all rights reserved", which indicates copyright. If someone is so desperate, they could ask for permission, but getting it is highly unlikely. Even if they get permission, the non-free image is subject to the copyright policy and the non-free image criteria on Wikipedia. Uploading without permission is copyright infringement. Doing so may (or will) result in speedy deletion, and doing it repeatedly may result in blocking or banning of the user. The image shouldn't be uploaded in the first place because there is a free equivalent for the picture.
 * How do you know? Can it be used per fair use guidelines? 3/5
 * 1) You've been a frequent contributor to an article and have helped get it so it's almost ready for nomination as a featured article. You log in one day to find that it's just been put up for AfD by a new user. Nobody has commented on the debate yet, so what should you do?
 * A: I would ask the editor why they nominated the article for deletion, assuming good faith. They may have made a mistake. If no one commented on the debate and the editor has no valid reason for the nomination, I would ask an administrator to close the debate. The result would be speedy keep.
 * √ 5/5
 * 1) How does the child protection policy apply to editors like yourself and what are two ways you can protect yourself?
 * A: The child protection policy is designed to protect my safety. On Wikipedia and anywhere online, there may be child predators or pedophiles. Most (or all of them hopefully) SOME are banned from Wikipedia. Thankfully, I trust Wikipedia is a safe website. Just in case, to protect myself:
 * 1. I will never give out any personally identifiable information (full name, address, phone number, social security number, etc.) I really shouldn't give out my age either, but very few people here know that.
 * Anyone who wants to can look at your user page... it says you are in middle school (12-14).
 * 2. Another way to protect myself is creating a separate e-mail address just for Wikipedia. That way, I can be safer because people won't know my name (or even part of it). Were you thinking of another way GP?
 * Second way is solid.
 * I don't trust that Wikipedia is a safe website. If it was, WP:OUT and WP:OVERSIGHT would be unnecessary. Granted, they help a lot, but nowhere on Wikipedia is safe, and you should always remain vigilant. Your answer, unfortunately, is rather naἳve. 3/5
 * 1) You're working with an new editor to cleanup a page they created. During the course of your discussions, you realize that the content of the article is an exact copy of a textbook the other editor is reading off of. What should you do?
 * A: Mark the page for speedy deletion under G12, referencing the plagiarized textbook. Explain to them that plagiarism is wrong and tell them not to do it again. The page specifically says to address the editor and tell them about the guideline. Also, I would tell them to fix any other plagiarized articles or request speedy deletion under G7 How would G7 apply? The author hasn't requested deletion. of plagiarized articles in good faith. I would help them again, provided that they reference the textbook and do not plagiarize or closely paraphrase from it.
 * Decent response. 4/5
 * 43/50


 * Total: 134/150

Questions, Comments, Excuses, Thoughts, etc.
I enjoyed doing this quiz and tried to demonstrate my best work. I've been sort of a perfectionist, as you can see with the history page. I like the idea of a #9 being customized instead of that "foo" question. Thanks for working so hard on my adoption. You guys are the best! JHU bal  27  17:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)