User:Jackson Peebles/Adoption/Tattoodwaitress Exam 2

1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith.
 * A-Assuming good faith means to not jump all over the editor that "appears" to have made a "mistake" or written something you disagree with, or has some how broken a wiki rule, or not followed Mos, etc. Assume that they are truly trying to improve wikipedia, give them time to correct it themselves. If and when you feel the need to comment on the edit or make changes to the edit talk about the edit not the editor. Treat others as you want to be treated. Leave a message for the editor to communicate your thoughts or when you find an article you feel meets the requirements for deletion give the editor who created the article notice by placing the appropriate template on their talk page. Speak with respect and civility always.
 * 5/5 Good explanation. I like your detailed answer.

2.) Q- Explain how you would deal with this scenario using specifics: You are working in New Page Patrol and come across a new page that, though it's content is fine, has a few minor formatting issues. The page is three minutes old. You fix the format issues on the page. A few minutes later, you get a nasty note on your talk page which states that you caused the new editor, who created the page, an edit conflict by performing your few minor corrections. He was unaware of how to correct an edit conflict, and therefore lost everything he was trying to do. He even goes so far as to start an AN/I discussion about how you're incompetent and should butt out of his editing. What specific steps would you take? Disclaimer: This is based on a true story. Note: A similar question will be asked once we get to the dispute resolution question, but simply based on assuming good faith, I want to hear how you'd approach this scenario.
 * A-1. First of all with the page being only three minutes old I would not have made any edits just yet. 2. I would assume that someone was working on the page. 3. IF I had been so quick to make a change to such a young page I would apologize for causing the edit conflict (despite the tongue lashing by the young editor) and offer my help in any way possible to fix the lost information such as reverting. 4. If there is nothing I can do to help get back lost information (which is entirely possible) all I can do is apologize, not engage the conflict any further by being rude or ignorant in response to the tongue lashing. 5. At that point I don't think it would help at all to remind the other editor not to be disrespectful to me since I started the whole issue by jumping the gun and I would just back away. Give them time to complete their editing and come back and check on it another time or maybe even find another more experienced editor and ask them to check on it or ask their advice on how to proceed.
 * 3.5/5 This is a bit of a tricky one. If the questions stated that you tagged the article with a CSD right away, I'd agree.  However, fixing minor formatting is just a helpful, kind, good faith gesture.  Your response, however, is still appropriate.  Apologizing is always a good approach.  Helping is better, when possible.  Both of those were great answers.  You failed to address the AN/I, but not responding too harshly will look good for you, and administrators are well-versed in what is an accident and what is intentional.  There is no grounds for an AN/I here.  The other user really should remain civil, though, and seeking out the experienced editor might be good for maintaining that, too.
 * Specific steps would be to 1. reply to his nasty message on my talk page with a respectful polite apology and an offer to help along with an explanation of how to deal with an edit conflict 2. posting this link Help:Edit conflict 3. Then I would respond to the AN/I as well with a polite and respectful explanation of my "good faith" edits and what occurred after I made those. 4. I would need to respond to the AN/I because even though there was no grounds for it I would want to explain my side of the story. (note) After review of the Admin Notice Incident page I am not real sure if it requires an explanation from me or if I just let the admin take over and do what they do. They would obviously be able to see how I responded to the negative talk respectfully on my talk page and see the other editors nasty tone.

3.) Have a look at the conversation below: Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In

3a.) Position A?
 * A-I think in this position he is replying to the original question and forgot to indent.
 * 5/5 - No. For the sake of this question, we're assuming indentation is correct.  Therefore, A is referring to Rod's Mate's question.  You're fine on these points, though; you simply overanalyzed the question.  Come back and fix these errors and I'll regrade question #3.
 * Ok so he is answering the question "like what" for position A.
 * Corrected to be correct.

3b.) Position B?
 * A-I think he is reply to the "like what?" question and again forgot to indent. OR doesn't know about the indent.
 * This one if the indent is correct like you say then he is answering the same question because his answer doesn't really answer the what do you want it for question. You are correct it is a bit confusing. I think he is answering the question again.
 * 4/5 Not quite sure what you're saying, here, but I think you're right. He is answering the original question in position B.  We know this because the next indentation to the left is the original question.

3c.) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
 * A-competent with templates or incompetent? I don't understand the questions. If they are competent why are you reporting them? Oh I just read the page re Sock puppetry and as there is a one account rule for all editors and the guidelines are yes you should report them as a possible sock. I would report to admin (who have access to the user tool to check user). Only blocked accounts get tagged. In some instances alternative accounts are warranted and any using alternative account should report to admin in order to avoid conflict in the future should editing attract scrutiny.
 * I think you misunderstood the question, so I'll withhold answering on this one, too. The question said "a low edit count seems... competent."  The question is whether his surprising talent with templates warrants opening a WP:SOCK investigation simply because he is new.
 * It would definitely appear to me that someone with a low edit count is new (i understood that part) and if they were really competent with the templates it would also appear that his talent didn't match his newness at editing. So I might come to the conclusion that he/she had two accounts and really wasn't as new as he/she appeared to be. At the end of the day... My answer to this is yes a new editor with a low edit count would not be all that competent with templates and it MIGHT warrant an investigation into the "possible sock". Not just because he is new but because his talent doesn't match. Although it could be that he is just really talented with templates because he did his homework and is good at it. Overall I am not one of those people who likes to jump on the negative position, I like to seek out the positive and think good about people rather than to go tattling for the way something appears to be.
 * 4/5 While I agree templates are tricky and, therefore, it would be surprising for a new editor to be good with them, the best part of your answer is when you state that you won't jump on the negative position. Since this lesson is on assuming good faith, we don't assume he's a sockpuppet unless the behavior closely resembles that of another user (and, in particular, if they are causing trouble).  This is a situation where we might suspect it and keep an eye on the user but not report them, as they could very well just be a very careful reader before editing or a very advanced computer user.

(end of answering questions for exam 2 TattØØdẄaitre§  lĖTŝ tÅLĶ  '' 17:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)) ✅ 21.5/25 Good work with the corrections. Thanks! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Once you have finished, please notify me on my talk page, then proceed to Lesson 3: Vandalism.


 * Please re-answer all components of question #3 before proceeding.
 * Re answered number #2 and all of #3 questions