User:WormTT/Adopt/Test/Gilderien

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

'''This exam was begun at 12:01, July 2. It will end at 12:01,''' .

Practical Test
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 at least 4 pages in new page patrol Diffs:
 * Chantae McMillan - Patrolled correctly, article was a stub but well enough sourced and no issues.
 * - Patrolled correctly, article was a stub but well enough sourced and no issues.
 * - Patrolled, improved a reference.
 * - Patrolled correctly.
 * - no changes made... page was never patrolled per log.
 * - Attack page. deleted. good catch.
 * Well, since you did over 4, and I can't see any actual problems with any of them, I'll have to give you 10/10 :D


 * ✅ - Participate in at least two AfD debates with reasoned comments. Diffs:
 * - Easy, but very well put and not just a sheep.
 * HA! You went for one of the biggest current debates on WP? That was an excellent comment in the debate, keep making reasoned arguments like that and you'll be a well loved expert in no time.

First diff is reversion, second is warning. At least 5, eh? :-)
 * No bonus points for them both being deleted. Tempted to give you bonus points for getting involved in something so big and scary! Either way, I don't really do bonuses, but you can have 10/10.
 * ✅ - Cleanup at least three articles (i.e., resolve at least one noted problem on at least three articles and remove that tag) Diffs:
 * - Interesting choice. You did a good job expanding the lead, but summed up the first 3 paragraphs with one sentence, could possibly have added a little more.
 * - Again, another good job, though it does read slightly awkwardly "1 year later, 2 years later... blah blah". Transferring timelines into prose isn't easy, but it's a very useful skill to have.
 * I'm impressed you managed to write so much when the article consists of almost nothing! Good job.
 * No complaints.
 * Not perfect, but cleanup isn't the easiest. I'd say 8/10.
 * ✅ - Make at least 5 anti-vandal reversions and warn the vandals appropriately. Diffs:

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.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * I'm not going to comment on each one individually, but have looked through and you appear to have categorised as vandalism/blanking/test edit correctly and issued the right warning. No complaints at all. 10/10
 * ✅ - Join a project associated with your interests. Diffs:
 * Surprised I haven't joined already, but... :-)
 * Well done. 10/10

So that's the practical test, 48/50

Written Test
Please leave your response to each question where indicated. Worm That Turned will check your responses at the end of the exam. Note that for some questions there may be multiple correct answers - as long as a response is in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it will be marked correct.


 * 1) What is consensus, and how does it apply to Wikipedia policies?
 * A:Consensus is the process through which actions are decided, including in article space (i.e. content disputes, appropriate weight), and Wikipedia policies. All Wikipedia policies are formed through consensus, and may be changed, altered, or even removed entirely if consensus changes over time. A good example, which explains it far better than I could hope for, is found in WP:BRD. If an edit is made, and not reverted, consensus may be assumed. If it is reverted, then a discussion is held to determine consensus. However, WP:NOT should be remembered, and with the possible exception of RfA, !voting is not the method of determining consensus usually. Methods include WP:MEDCABAL, WP:RFC and/or WP:RFC/U.
 * Very good answer. Not sure how much RfC/U fits in, but otherwise I have no problems. 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:Talk to the author, and ask why they feel it meets WP:GNG. If they failed to convince me, I would list it at WP:AFD.
 * Talking to the author is the right thing to do, and PRODs shouldn't be controversial, so taking it to AfD is also the right place to go. 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:Respond politely, and explain to them why I feel it should not be deleted, ideally with links to the relevant policies. I would also remind them that according to WP:PROD, a removed PROD tag should not be replaced, and that if they feel it should be deleted, the appropriate action to take would be to list it at WP:AFD.
 * Yep. All very good. Whether you can remain that calm in practise would be interesting, but that's the perfect answer and I'll hold you to it :P 5/5.
 * 1) When is it appropriate to report a vandal to administration?
 * A: I presume here you mean WP:AIV. In that case, well, normally Huggle would do that for me anyway, but if I couldn't use it, it would only be if they had continued vandalising after either a level 4, or IM warning. (Also, in this case, "after" means a reasonable time afterwards, say 30 seconds or slightly less - much less than this and it is feasible that they would not have seen the new messages bar if they opened the edit window before receiving the final warning, for example)
 * I left the question as vague as I could. You are right, that after 4 or IM, they should, but I would suggest that there are many other situations, like extremely fast vandalism, egregious comments and many other situations. So, you're not wrong, but I'd have liked to see less of a robot ;) 3/5.
 * 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:If there have been no other significant contributions by any other editors, then I would use Twinkle to tag it under WP:CSD, or author requests deletion.
 * Yep. 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, apologize. Leave an apologetic note on their talkpage, and remove the warnings with a "rmv inappropriate warning" edit summary. If I have incorrectly labelled someone's edit as vandalism, it could offend them greatly. Also, remember WP:BITE. Then, I would endeavour to be more careful in future.
 * Very good. If you're wrong and you can see you're wrong, then accepting your wrong and learning from it is a good way to go. 5/5
 * 1) I found an image on a website of a person that could be really useful in an article I'm writing about them. The website doesn't say the image is copyrighted, so what should I do to upload it to Wikipedia?
 * A:Well, the assumption I would make is that it was copyrighted, and so I could not upload it. If it was, for example, a photo of a deceased person and there were no free photos of this person elsewhere, then I could upload it at a low resolution under a claim of fair use, but if they were living then this would not be possible. If it was an exceptionally good photograph then I might consider e-mailing the site owner to find the copyright owner, and then ask them to consider donating the photo to Wikipedia, and direct them how to use the OTRS system to verify this.
 * Very good, covering all sorts of possibilities and being right throughout. 5/5
 * 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:Hmmm....allowing for the possibility I might have a COI here having put so much time and effort into this article, I'm tempted to say that if I was so sure that it was a suitable topic for an article, then I would not comment and allow others to intervene if it were obvious a fallacious listing, but I'm not sure I would be able not to make a comment. So, I would probably !vote strong keep, (or speedy keep) and explain why I feel it should not be deleted, listing the policies that applied to the particular topic area the article was in.
 * Nothing wrong with that answer. I'd suggest that you actually spoke to the editor in question, to see if he understood what he did, as an AfD could affect the article's chances for featured status. But otherwise, I'm glad you've spotted that you would have strong feelings and the rest of your comments were good. 4/5
 * 1) If I wrote a template "foo" with this code, what would be displayed when I called it like this: Thanks again! ? Thanks for helping with ! It's a great help.
 * A: Hmmm, I'll come back to this, but I think - Thanks for helping with Lorem Ipsum! It's a great help. Thanks again! Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 15:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)- although I'm not sure what you're doing with the, it might be a trick question, displaying only "" or something.
 * No, that's perfect. The includeonly bit stops the sig from being generated beforehand :) 5/5
 * 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:If the whole content is plagiarised, then inform the editor that copyrighted content is not allowed on WP, tag it for deletion under WP:CSD, and offer to help them re-write the article in there own words (and mine).
 * Very good. Deletion of copyright material is important if it's not fixable. That sounds like the best solution. 5/5


 * And that's the written test done. Another excellent score. 47/50.

Questions and excuses
If you have any problems during the exam, please post them here. Good luck!


 * Am I allowed to use automated tools, i.e. Twinkle for tagging and Huggle for RC patrol? Also, how do I link a diff of patrolling a non-speedy page?-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 12:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. And just link me to the page not the diff, I can do the rest.  Worm TT( talk ) 12:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Will I lose points/marks/whatever by using Huggle, if so could I do an appropriate amount more reversions, it wouldn't tax me too much as I normally do a couple of hundred at once; however, I'm perfectly happy to do it all manually.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 18:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No points will be lost, as long as you choose the right warnings :) You still have to think to use huggle, you know!  Worm TT( talk ) 07:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, consider the test finished by 1500 UTC tomorrow :) I won't have internet access until Saturday the 14th, well after the test deadline.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 16:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've left invisible comments next to some/most of the practical test answers, by way of explanation.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 09:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Overall: 95% - PASS Well done!