User:Isarra/Final Exam

Final Exam for generic Wikipedian

Congratulations on reaching your final exam. Please follow all instructions carefully.

This exam was begun at 02:51, May 5. It will end at 02:51, May 12.

Practical Test

The practical test records have been removed due to concerns of WP:POINTINESS.

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.

Since Rcsprinter has forgotten to update to update the test to say he will mark it - I, Worm That Turned, will do the honours

1. What is consensus, and how does it apply to Wikipedia policies?

   A: 'Consensus' is a word for use when the closing results of AfDs, RfCs, and other discussions and vote-like things proves less than agreeable. Depending on the situation, it can be made to mean anything from 'vote count' to 'word count' to 'use of proper english' to 'most references to existing policies' to 'highest presence of established users' to 'those agreeing with me' to 'people I like', but unlike more specific word choice, the term is politically neutral enough to not immediately undermine one's position.

   What on earth has Rcsprinter been teaching you? That's a properly cynical answer! It's certainly not what consensus is MEANT to mean, though I admit I've seen it mean just that in a couple of places. You also don't mention how it applies to Wikipedia policies. I'll give you 2/5.

2. 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: If absolutely certain of the outcome, taking the article to WP:AFD would be the most prudent approach, as being right in these matters - and in being proven right with links and diffs - is a very valuable currency on Wikipedia. If the outcome is not certain, however, doing nothing and letting someone else handle it would be far safer; failed WP:AFDs can mean the end of a WP:RFA.

   I was right with you up to the point you chickened out and ran away, and the reasonings you gave. However, those are two valid approaches you can take... 4/5.

3. 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: Politely explain WP:PROD and WP:NPA to the user, mentioning that if they are unfamiliar with the deletion policy, perhaps they should not be using it, but encourage them to do better in the future so that the encounter does not look WP:BITEY.

   ... cute. No really. Though, dammit, I can't fault the outcome. 4/5

4. When is it appropriate to report a vandal to administration?

   

   Ultimately it is a game of knowing the audience. An adequate cover or proper approach will make anything acceptable.

   A: This can vary by the venue. Vandals that have been already given appropriate templates can be automatically added to WP:AIV, whereas users with names indicating their intent can be added to WP:UAA without prejudice. Users of a more subjective nature, such as long-term users doing some good and some bad can be taken to WP:ANI, and ones that one just doesn't like can be reported for removal to a sympathetic Admin through entirely less public channels such as WP:IRC or email.

   Yes, yes, yes, *dropped jaw*. Technically maybe, but my god no... oh and you didn't actually answer the question - it wasn't where should you report the vandal, but when should you do it. After multiple warnings, egregious vandalism, legal threats, blatent promotion and so on and so forth. 1/5

5. 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: WP:G7

   What? No comments? Nothing but a right answer? Pah. 5/5.

6. 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: Apologise for the inconvenience, but point the user to WP:CITE, informing them that any unsourced additions may be removed at any time, and of course to WP:NPA. If applicable, linking any relevant WP:MOS entries as well as going through the user's contributions and bringing up any other issues can help support one's overall correctness in the situation.

   Oh, the old, non-apology apology followed by harrassment approach. Yeah, can't say I approve of that one. (Especially since I didn't say it wasn't cited :P) That'd be a 1/5.

7. 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: Don't. Getting it wrong would only provide more fuel for those who may later blow an unrelated dispute out of proportion.

   Well, that doesn't help the encyclopedia and seems very cowardly, but... it's not wholly wrong either. 2/5.

8. 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: For now, hold off on commenting on the WP:AFD - having a quiet word with the user on their talkpage explaining WP:DEL (or the relevant bits of it that make one right and them not right, rather), their mistake, and that everyone here was at some point in that position as well may convince them to retract the nomination entirely. Should that fail, well, apparent good interactions with other users still look good, even if one didn't mean a word of it, and putting a thorough but concise WP:!VOTE on the discussion page should convince anyone else looking at it to immediately agree the page should indeed be kept.

   Cynical again. But... actually, exactly what you should do. 5/5.

9. If I wrote a template "foo" with this code, what would be displayed when I called it like this: {{subst:foo|article=Lorem Ipsum|Thanks again!}}?

   Thanks for helping with [[{{{article|that article}}}]]! It's a great help. {{{1|}}} <includeonly>~~</includeonly>~~

   A: Thanks for helping with Lorem Ipsum! It's a great help. Thanks again! Host (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

   Haha! I'll dock you a point for not using your sig. BWHAHAHAHAHA. 4/5.

10. 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: Inform the user that this is a WP:COPYVIO and not acceptable, though such mistakes starting out are normal. Then tell them how to tag it for deletion, and encourage them to start over, writing the article in their own words. Offer as well to help with that if they desire; chances are they won't, and the offer can then be used later to defend oneself against claims of WP:BITING.

    Again, not exactly how I'd put things, but yes, technically you're doing everything right. 5/5.

It upsets me that someone can give those answers and not get the worst score I've given out... 33/50 - not quite a pass...

Questions and excuses

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

No concerns