Okay, right.

Here's a situation.

You are in #wikipedia-en-vandalism and another user satys that 192.186.78.12 is vandalising and needs a block. He has no warnings. What do you do? --Celestianpower háblame 21:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Before anything, I'd check Special:Contributions/192.186.78.12 to see exactly what he's done, checking all the diffs of recent edits. If the user indeed committed real vandalism, then I would drop an appropriate subst'd template from Template:TestTemplates, most likely on User_talk:192.186.78.12, depending on the number, severity, and freshness of vandal edits. If vandalism continues after the warnings (or if it's especially bad - eg, massive POV edits on a prominent page or WoW-style page moves), I would keep adding test templates until I've reached level 4 or if the vandalism shows no sign of stopping.
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be myself or an admin in this situation; if I'm a regular user, I'd list the vandal at WP:AIV at this point. If not, I'd go ahead and block for a relatively short period of time (a few hours) and keep an eye on the user.
Anything else? I'm not expecting to do too well on these tests, since this is "admin coaching" after all. I'm hoping to learn, not get things 100% correct.
Thanks for the short assignment, in any case!
Snurks T C 00:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
In all these assignments, you are assuming you're an admin. Yes, that's the right answer by the way - congratulations (these tests I'm haoping to make gradually harder, so that I can work out what part of your knowledge is weakest).

Assignment 2: After reverting vandalism, you go to the talkpage to give a warning to the user and find he has a {{bv}} template attatched. What do you do? --Celestianpower háblame 09:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The fun thing about {{bv}} is that it's an instant shortcut to {{test4}}/{{test5}}, so I'd either add the "final warning" {{test4}} template or just go straight to the block and add {{test5}}. Of course, I'd do a quick contrib check to see if the original {{bv}} was warranted, but if the user is still making blatantly harmful edits, it's probably pretty clear that he needs a few hours of chill-out time.
Snurks T C 16:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Question. Have you in your wikitime found yourself in conflict because you were actually following the rules? -- ( drini's page ) 00:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I've been pretty lucky in that regard. I've seen it happen, though. Snurks T C 23:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Question What's the best and the worst you've experienced so far on wikipedia? -- ( drini's page ) 00:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The best is watching any kind of process (writing an article, voting on an arbitrator, arguing an AFD) go right, complete with a nice civil debate complete with supporting evidence and consensus and so on. The worst is when the opposite happens, and a process goes bad. Additionally, one of my least favorite things about Wikipedia is how magnificently anal-retentive as well as vindictive some people get. It happens all over the internet, but it can be especially bad here. Snurks T C 23:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Questino If you were able to change a policy, which one would you change and why? -- ( drini's page ) 00:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not really a policy, but I think that some project pages are a little unsuited to the wiki format, especially AFD and the other deletion pages. Unfortunately I can't think of much that can be done about that, short of coding an entirely new system for specific project pages which would be an enormous job.
In terms of actual policies, I think blockings should be distributed a little more liberally. Nobody's going to go nuts if somebody's unfairly blocked for a couple hours, and I believe streamlining the process would cut down on a lot of vandalism. Snurks T C 23:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)