User talk:HAL(Old)/Quiz

NOTE! This is how I answered the quiz originally found on User:G1ggy/Adopt/Quiz (link in tact on purpose). It is for adoption purposes, do not answer this quiz here, thank you!

1. You encounter an AfD debate about a band that receives 500 independent, relevant (as in, they are all about the same band, and are not on the same website) Google hits, but has not had a song in the Billboard Top 100. How do you vote?

• Well, that depends. Just because it doesn't have a hit in the Billboard Top 100 doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't notable. But also, all Google sites have to be checked out, because it could be about the band, but all of them could be little notes, like "Band X is a small band in the town of _TOWN NAME_, _STATE_" and could have less than 10 fans or something. I would probably check it out a bit, and make my decision from there. Also, I would check out the article to make sure that it wasn't unsalvageable BS and such. But most likely, unless it was some garage band or something, I would vote keep.
  • Y - WP:BAND#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles, #1 states that it needs publications about it. Obviously, if the Ghits were rubbish, you should vote delete, but otherwise that's correct.

1. In an RfA, a user’s answer to question 1 is that they would like to work on protecting good articles. Based on this answer alone, what do you do (disregard the user’s contributions and other answers)?

• I wouldn't find that to be good sysop work, as if the person was just interested in protecting (assuming that he means manually protecting it, not with the admin tool for protection) I wouldn't really be all that thrilled. Protecting articles is what every user can do, it's easy, and even anonymous users can do it.

IF he was referring to the admin tool, I would be skeptical. Just because it's a good article doesn't mean it needs protection, since it would be unfair to anonymous users to just protect pages like that. So either way, I would probably not be too thrilled with that answer.

• • Y

1. A vandal has made 5 edits to the same article. They were all made in the last 5 minutes, and all contain swearing and obscene images. He has not received a warning on this talk page yet. What do you do?

• I would probably give him a {{uw-vand2}} or {{uw-vand3}} on his talk page. A vand2 would link to the sandbox, but I would probably put in a vand3, and then just give him links to the sandbox and such (since that's a "HEY!!" message, instead of an "excuse me" message, since he would probably continue vandalizing that page, or others)
  • N - If he's made 5 vandal edits, that counts as going past his final warning (since there are four levels). Thus, a {{uw-vand4im}} and a report to AIV would be appropriate.

1. You encounter an article that is undergoing an edit war - two logged in users are reverting each other on the spelling (British vs. American) of the article’s subject in the lead paragraph, and another user is attempting to resolve the dispute by moving the article from one spelling to another (this is also being reverted). What do you do?

• I would probably try to resolve the matter by using the 3RR warning template (or some equivalent) on their userpages. If that didn't stop it, I would start warning them, and try to contact them, I would also take action (dispute, edit war, etc.) templates on the article and talk page, and if there was no stopping them, requesting administrator intervention.
  • Y - A report to WP:AN3 and WP:RFPP would be appropriate if the 3RR template doesn't work.

1. An anonymous user blanks a spam article (he removes all content from it). What do you do?

• Revert, warn the user (but assuming good intentions, also add a note informing them of the CSD system, and how to use it), CSD the article, and CSD warn the author(s). Even though the editor may have had good intentions, it could quite possibly be vandalism. I would also keep the user's contributions page open, and possibly check it before continuing. Also keep an eye on it for more blanking.
• IF it obviously good intentions (by an edit summary), however, I would just CSD the article, and CSD warn the author(s). I would probably also post a note on the anonymous user's talk page, informing them of the CSD process, and that's what they should use next time.
  • Y Y (Double tick for the italic stuff)

1. You find an article that has been prodded for non-notability, but that you believe is notable. You remove the prod tag, stating in your edit summary that you believe the article meets notability guidelines, but this is reverted, along with an angry note on your talk page. What do you do?

• Inform the user of the PROD system, and replace the PROD (or ask them to do it) with an AfD discussion process, as a removed PROD cannot be added again, and must be an AfD. I would also, quite possibly, add a "no personal attacks" notice to the user's talk page. And begin the AfD. If they continued to try to PROD it, I would probably warn them, and if necessary seek the assistance of the Arbitration Committee.
  • Y - As far as I know, Prods CAN be re-added, and I see nothing at WP:PROD that states otherwise. However, the addition of an AfD is still the best way to go about this, and the NPA notice may be appropriate too. I don't think you should go arbcom for this, they are for content disputes and mediation. For this sort of thing, you would be best off reporting to WP:AN/I

1. A user with 29 edits submits an RfA, and you are the first to view it (he added it to the main page at the same time you visited it, and no one else has seen it yet). What do you do?

• I would probably check out the edits, and the user a bit. Chances are I wouldn't approve their RfA, but I would give them a chance to answer at least SOME of the questions before making my final decision, who knows, they could be the best sysop in the world, but only have 23 edits. Also, it's possible that they were editing anonymously for months, maybe even years.
  • N - They would state if they were editing anonymously. Such RfA's must be withdrawn ASAP per WP:SNOW

1. You revert something as being “inappropriate humour”, and the user you reverted leaves a note on your talk page telling you that it wasn’t inappropriate, but a serious scientific condition. They also inform you that your revert has been reverted. Upon research, you find that they were correct. What do you do?

• Hmm... this looks extremely familiar (just teasing you). Alright, I would probably apologize to them, explaining that I made a mistake, just like all other humans, and I would ask them (and if needed explain to them) how to use the "ref" system, and I would also probably add a reference to the statement, and inform them that I had done that for them.
  • Y - Damn, I just realised you saw that happen :P Yes, it was based on that time that I was wrong ;)

1. A user continuously creates spam articles about his/her business. You tag each one with {{db-spam}}, and leave appropriate messages on his talk page (as indicated by the CSD template). This doesn’t stop him, and he continues to make the articles, so you report him to AIAV. Your report is rejected by a non-administrator, who leaves a note on your talk page telling you that the user had not vandalised past his final warning, as is rule for AIAV. How do you respond to this user, and how do you deal with the vandal (who, in the meantime, continues to create the article)?

• I would inform them that they HAD gone past the final warning, as (I'm assuming we're past 4 recreates at this point) the user has been recreating this page. If he had deleted my AIV, I would attempt to settle the conflict between me and him, before I go and file another AIV. If we are unable to come to a consensus, I would probably leave my AIV in place, or make a new one. I'm pretty sure that AIVs aren't allowed to be rejected by non-administrators (if this is incorrect, please tell me), but either way, I would like Administrator feedback on that case.
  • Y N - {{db-spam}} doesn't count as a final warning towards AIV (IMO). Therefore, the removal was technically correct. However, you should suggest to the remover (who IS allowed to remove them, anyone can remove AIV reports) that they use common sense in helping to stop the vandal. At the same time, file another AIV report, since it's vital the vandal is blocked ASAP, not that you wait for unrelated consensus to be reached.

1. A user leaves a message on your talk page asking for your support in his RfA. You have not previously encountered the user, except that you left a message on his talk page a few days ago informing him that an article had been prodded. Do you vote in the RfA, and if yes, how do you vote?

• I would probably vote, and I would be going to the page, with my brain in "oppose" mode, BUT I wouldn't cement that in there, I would check out his RfA, a bit of the user, and see if I can change my mine (because I hate to oppose anything). But unfortunately, I can't remember the term, but as I see (and feel myself) going out and "recruiting" for RfAs is bad... I just don't like it, and a lot of others don't as well.
  • Y - I was hoping you'd mention canvassing somewhere in there. Yes, you are still able to oppose him, but you should mention the note in your talk page just so it's out in the open. You don't have to, but you probably should.

1. Brisbane is nominated for deletion (AfD), and you stumble upon the debate almost directly after it’s nominated (before anyone has had the chance to vote in it). What do you do?

• I would most likely say keep the article. I am unable to close or delete the AfD, even though it is a completely inappropriate one, so I would allow it to continue. Chances are, though, that someone who is allowed to (sysops I think) would close the AfD early, or only after a little while, as most people would probably say "keep"
  • N - You are allowed to - WP:DELPRO#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. Again, this should be closed ASAP per WP:SNOW

Well, that's it! Thanks a lot, and let me know how I did here! --HAL2008 talk 15:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments: I'm not sure why, but I've got this idea in my head that you'd be an awesome admin. Thus, I strongly suggest you get up to speed with snowballing. Also, I'm guessing it's not in your nature (mainly because of "because I hate to oppose anything"), but you need to understand that sometimes, things around here can get competitive, and that you need to keep up. Consensus should be reached, yes, but report that vandal first! The most important thing is to maintain integrity, then seek improvement. At least, that's how I see it.

Anyways, you did quite well here. Your final score was 7.5/11, but you got a bonus point, so 8.5/11 is your score (half points for 2 questions where you got a tick and cross). You've now "graduated" from the program, and can add {{User:G1ggy/Adopt/Quizbox|8.5|11}} to your userpage, and I'll certainly add {{AdopterProud|HAL2008}} to my adoption page!

Remember, if you EVER need ANY help at all with ANY aspect of Wikipedia, even a minor copyedit, I'm always happy to help you. G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 01:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)