User:Mz7/CVUA/Siddiqsazzad001

Hello Siddiqsazzad001, and welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your academy page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible in your answers, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me at my talk page.

Make sure you read through Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.
 * How to use this page

Good faith and vandalism
When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. It is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labelling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.


 * In the space below, please explain the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.

Good faith (WP:AGF) are those edits, which have good intentions behind edits but result disruptive edits. Like adding unuseful information, right typo fix but turn into wrong (mistakly), edits not per Wikipedia policy and results are unhelpful.

Bad faith (also known as vandalism) are those edits, which have bad intentions behind edits. It is a kind difficult behavior to understand that what they want. Ex. Blanking whole page, adding wrong information, adding a personal name on the article, edits against Wikipedia policy etc.


 * You have the right understanding that the fundamental distinction between good faith and bad faith is intention. As long as the user intends to help Wikipedia, it does not matter whether how destructive their edits were, they're still considered "good faith" and should be handled differently from vandalism. To illustrate this, I can think of a few cases where some of your examples for bad-faith editing could be considered good faith. When a user blanks a page, consider why they blanked the page. If the content they removed was negative, unsourced information about living persons, then you cannot restore the content per WP:BLP. If a user adds wrong information, consider whether they simply made a mistake; if the information isn't blatantly false, consider politely asking for the source of their information before making the vandalism accusation. Mz7 (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * But the blank pages are automatically restored by ClueBot NG. Then how could we know that what the reason behind blank page. Siddiqsazzad001   (TALK)    07:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, ClueBot NG is a computer program that looks for common vandalism patterns and automatically reverts some edits. If a user blanks a page, ClueBot may possibly revert the edit, but it can sometimes make mistakes. It is up to humans to actually assess the intention behind the user removing content from page. Look at the version of the page prior to when the user removed content, and check whether the content that was removed is problematic. Is it unsourced? Is it about living persons? Could it potentially be libellous? If yes, you may want to revert ClueBot NG. If you are ever not sure whether an edit is good faith or bad faith, the standard on Wikipedia is to assume good faith. Mz7 (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. You don't need to revert the example you find, and I am happy for you to use previous undos in your edit history if you wish.
 * Good faith


 * - This show still running on Television but going to air off, added future information


 * added unnecessary information. Per WP:TVCAST policy I reverted it.


 * good intention but not official website and might be spam link.


 * Vandalism


 * added wrong information.


 * removed whole section without reason.


 * I don't know what he trying to do, but it is totally vandalism.


 * ✅ Good examples. Let me know whether you have any questions about my feedback above; if not, let me know and I'll post the next assignment.  Mz7 (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, You can submit the next assignment. I am little bit weak in English. So please try to write in easy English language, If you want. Siddiqsazzad001   (TALK)    07:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ve posted your next assignment below. If there is any part of my language that is too complicated for you, let me know which part and I would be happy to clarify. Mz7 (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Warning and reporting
When you use Twinkle to warn a user, you have a number of options to choose from: you can select the kind of warning (for different offences), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4, for increasing severity). Knowing which warning to issue and what level is very important. Further information can be found at WP:WARN and WP:UWUL.


 * Please answer the following questions:
 * Why do we warn users?

A: To inform the user that what he/she done, which are not appropriate for Wikipedia, also that is not followed by Wikipedia policy (for both case: assumes good faith or vandalism). First, we are starting from the user talk page with general note (Level 1), which was called a notice for the assumes good faith. It is not always necessary for an editor engaging in vandalism to receive a full 4 warnings before they can be reported or blocked.
 * ✅ Right, the goal is to educate the users, informing them about best practices and the problems with their edits so far and to ask that they stop. Mz7 (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

A: Level 4im is also called "Only Warning". After giving final warning (Level 4), we use this warning. This warning is for those users who cross the all limits of vandalism. Generally used in the case of excessive or continuous disruption from a user or specific IP.
 * A level 4im is a warning we give to editors immediately. In other words, there is no need to wait until after we give a level 4 warning to give a level 4im warning. We use this warning level if a user commits vandalism that is particularly egregious or spreads across many articles; it is for vandalism that is extremely disruptive and needs to be stopped as soon as possible. Mz7 (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right. Siddiqsazzad001   (TALK)    08:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Should you substitute a template when you place it on a user talk page, and how do you do it?

A: Using Twinkle to add a substitute template or adding manually by placing subst: (after {{ the opening braces} template.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?

A: We should report and notify the Administrator intervention against vandalism of the user behaviour at ANI Administrator intervention against vandalism or we can use the Twinkle report option. Also we can add manually.


 * I have a follow-up question. How would you choose between Administrator intervention against vandalism or ANI when reporting a user to administrators? Mz7 (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry typing mistake. I would report at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Siddiqsazzad001   (TALK)    08:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between WP:AIV and WP:ANI? Mz7 (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia:ANI is for report about an incidents and Wikipedia:AIV for report user. Siddiqsazzad001   (TALK)    20:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference is a bit more significant than that and more relevant to what we're discussing here. It is still possible to "report users" to WP:ANI.
 * If the user you are dealing with is an obvious vandal or spammer, you should report the user to WP:AIV.
 * If the user you are dealing with is a good faith editor making disruptive edits, you should report the user to WP:ANI and not WP:AIV.
 * We discussed the difference between good-faith and bad-faith editing in the previous section of the course, and this is one of the ways we differentiate our response to disruptive edits based on whether the edits are good-faith or bad-faith. Obvious vandals and spammers are usually blocked very quickly by administrators, whereas administrators will likely need an extended discussion to handle a good-faith editor being disruptive. If you have any questions about what I have written here, or if it is confusing, please don't hesitate to ask. If everything is clear, I'll post your next assignment. Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, You can post for my next assignment. Siddiqsazzad001   (TALK)    20:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted below. Mz7 (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Please give examples (using ) of three different warnings (not different levels of the same warning and excluding the test edit warning levels referred to below), that you might need to use while recent changes patrolling and explain what they are used for.


 * Test edits - Level 2:

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

* Test edits, which considered vandalism - Level 3:

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.


 * Removing of speedy deletion templates - Level 1:

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.


 * Vandalism - Level 4:

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.

Make sure you keep in mind that some edits that seem like vandalism can be test edits. This happens when a new user is experimenting and makes accidental unconstructive edits. Generally, these should be treated with good faith, especially if it is their first time, and warned gently. The following templates are used for test edits:, and.

I just wanted to make sure you know about Special:RecentChanges, if you use the diff link in a different window or tab you can check a number of revisions much more easily. If you enable Hovercards in the Hover section of your preferences, you can view the diff by just hovering over it. Alternately, you can press control-F or command-F and search for "tag:". some edits get tagged for possible vandalism or section blanking.


 * As the instructions say, please use do not provide different levels of the same warning, and do not provide the test edit warning examples that I already provided. Mz7 (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Added a different level template. Now you can see. Siddiqsazzad001   (TALK)    03:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, nice. I've posted your next assignment below, which is a bit longer and more involved than the assignments so far. Feel free to take as much time as you need on it and ask questions if you're not sure about something. Mz7 (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Finding and reverting vandalism

 * Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Please include at least two test edits and at least two appropriate reports to AIV. For each revert and warning please fill in a line on the table below


 * Great work on this section! No glaring issues. :) I'll post your next assignment momentarily. Mz7 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Tools
Recent changes patrol includes a list of tools and resources for those who want to fight vandalism with a more systematic and efficient approach. In addition to manually going through Special:RecentChanges, there are a large number of tool which assist users in the fight against vandalism. They range from tools which help filter and detect vandalism to tools which will revert, warn and report users. Here are a few.

Twinkle
Twinkle, as you know, is very useful. It provides three types of rollback functions (vandalism, normal and AGF) as well as an easy previous version restore function (for when there are a number of different editors vandalising in a row). Other functions include a full library of speedy deletion functions, and user warnings. It also has a function to propose and nominate pages for deletion, to request page protection to report users to WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:SPI, and other administrative noticeboards.

User creation log
In my early days of fighting vandalism on Wikipedia, one of the strategies I would use to find vandalism was to patrol the account creation log. This is located at Special:Log/newusers, and it logs every time a new user account is created on Wikipedia. You'll notice that new accounts with no contributions so far will have a red "contribs" links, whereas new accounts with some contributions will have blue "contribs" links. One great way not only to find vandalism, but welcome new users to Wikipedia is to check the blue contribs links that come in.

Rollback
See rollback, this user right introduces an easy rollback button (which with one click reverts an editor's contributions). I'll let you know when I think you're ready to apply for the rollback user right.


 * I was revoking in 16 March 2018 due to misuse. Can I get rollback right if I apply? - Siddiqsazzad001   (TALK)    23:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a specific part in this course when I normally encourage students to apply for the right, and we haven't gotten there yet. I would wait until we get there before doing so. (It's after we cover things like usernames, speedy deletion and page protection.) Mz7 (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

STiki
STiki is an application that you download to your computer, and it provides you with diffs which either it or User:ClueBot NG have scored on their possibility of being uncontructive, and you are given the option to revert it as vandalism, revert it assuming good faith, mark it as innocent, or abstain from making a judgment on the diff. In order to use STiki, you need one of the following: (1) the rollback permission, (2) at least 1000 article edits (in the article namespace, not talk/user pages), or (3) special permission via Wikipedia talk:STiki.

Huggle
Huggle is also an application you download to your computer which presents you diffs (orders them on the likelihood of being unconstructive edits and on the editor's recent history) from users not on its whitelist. It allows you to revert vandalism, warn and reports users in one click. The rollback permission is required to use Huggle.

Dealing with difficult users
Occasionally, some vandals will not appreciate your good work and try to harass or troll you. In these situations, you must remain calm and ignore them. If they engage in harassment or personal attacks, you should not engage with them and leave a note at WP:ANI. If they vandalise your user page or user talk page, simply remove the vandalism without interacting with them. Please read WP:DENY.


 * Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?

I just want to say the only thing that In this situation, I would like to follow WP:AVOIDYOU and WP:DENY policy. Because there is no use to talk with them. Why we care that what they think about us? If we feed them then they get stronger and giving us more personal attack slowly. I think we should be civil. So we shouldn't feed them if they troll or harass us.
 * The reason why we deny recognition is because recognition is exactly what they want. Whenever we give them more attention than they deserve, we are giving them what they want. Mz7 (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * How can you tell between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you?

First, I would explain the user briefly that why I reverted his edit. If he trolling or harassing me then firstly I would inform the user about WP:PERSONAL policy. If the user understands the policy and stoping trolling me, then it will be fine. But if he continue harassing me and when he cross his limit, then I would report at WP:AN/I. Most of the admins and user follow the WP:RBI, that is great.


 * I think you may have misunderstood the question a bit. The question is not what you would do in these two situations, but how would you tell the difference between them. If you have ever been reverted on Wikipedia, you know that it is typically not a pleasant experience, and users will sometimes get annoyed at you and post a message asking why you reverted their edit. If this happens, is the user trolling you? How can you tell? Mz7 (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh! Sorry - A good-faith editors can also get angry at us. But it's important to be able to differentiate between a user who wants to make us annoyed, versus a user who is annoyed at us. If the user contributions were clearly vandalism then we can be fairly sure that they are trolling us. But if the user contributions were not clearly vandalism then we will try to see it from their point of view and discuss the matter civil way. Thank you - Siddiqsazzad001   (TALK)    05:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good answer. I think this goes back to our discussion earlier about telling the difference between "good faith" and "vandalism" – the key is intention. Looking at and thinking about the edits in question is a really good first step: if the edits are clearly false (e.g. "Hitler is the U.S. President"), then we can be sure that this user is not actually here to build an encyclopedia. However, in any case where there is doubt, our guideline is to assume good faith and give them respect and attention. Mz7 (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Protection and speedy deletion
Protecting and deleting pages are two additional measures that can be used to prevent and deal with vandalism. Only an administrator can protect or delete pages; however, anyone can nominate a page for deletion or request protection. If you have Twinkle installed, you can use the Twinkle menu to request page protection or speedy deletion (the RPP or CSD options).

Protection
Please read the protection policy.

A: Pages should be semi protected when an article, template, user page and Wikipedia's document policy page being regular vandalized by anonymous users and registered new users, especially for Biographies of living persons article.
 * In what circumstances should a page be semi-protected?
 * ✅ Good, it's for when a page is being persistently vandalized or disrupted by users who are not autoconfirmed (registered account for 4 days with 10 edits). Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

A: When we applying for pending changes protection is the depended on the rate of editing on the page. If a page has a high rate of editing then pending changes wouldn't be very effective. But if an article faces occasional though persistent disruptive editing pending changes to be the most effective.
 * In what circumstances should a page be pending changes protected?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

A: When a significant number of disruption or vandalism by extended confirmed users, then admin active for full protection on vandalism or disruption pages. I think the most common reason for applying full protection is definitely to stop edit wars.
 * In what circumstances should a page be fully protected?
 * ✅ Edit warring is definitely the most common reason for full protection, but it's been applied in the past for WP:BLP as well. Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

A: This is useful for bad articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. Such protection is case-sensitive. Pages that have been creation- protected are sometimes referred to as "salted".
 * In what circumstances should a page be creation protected ("salted")?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

A: Article Talk pages are not usually protected, and are only semi-protected for a limited duration in the most severe cases of vandalism. And User talk pages are rarely protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users.
 * In what circumstances should a talk page be semi-protected?
 * ✅ Right, the vandalism should be severe because we want to leave at least one venue open for anonymous editors to contribute even if the talk page's associated article is semi-protected. Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Diff: - Requested for Semi-protection because this page was vandalized by IP users many times.
 * Correctly request the protection of one page (pending, semi or full); post the diff of your request (from WP:RPP) below.
 * ✅ Good work! Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please read WP:CSD.

A: Pages should be speedily deleted if they meet at least one criterion of a very narrow set of criteria that allow administrators to delete quickly. Criterion like: G1. Patent nonsense, G2. Test pages, G5. Creations by banned or blocked users etc.
 * In what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted, very briefly no need to go through the criteria?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Correctly tag two pages for speedy deletion (with different reasons - they can be for any of the criteria) and post the diff and the criteria you requested it be deleted under below.


 * - G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * - G3: Blatant hoax
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Excellent work in this section! I can't find anything glaringly wrong in your responses. The next section is about usernames, after which I'll give you a progress test – after that, I'll ask you about the rollback right. Mz7 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Usernames
Wikipedia has a policy which details the types of usernames which users are permitted to have. Some users (including me) patrol the User creation log to check for new users with inappropriate usernames. There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed: Please read WP:USERNAME, and pay particluar attention to dealing with inappropriate usernames.
 * Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, usernames that impersonate other people, or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps.
 * Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia.
 * Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
 * Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.
 * Describe the what you would about the following usernames of logged in users (including which of the above it breaches and why).


 * DJohnson
 * Looking normal, but if the user begins claiming they are Dwayne Johnson, then it would be a misleading username. Then I will report at WP:UAA.
 * ✅ Good. For this one, I wouldn't do anything unless they are claiming to be a famous person. Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * LMedicalCentre
 * It's look like promotional username. In this case, I would warn the user with using tag on his/her talk page.
 * Good, but remember to make sure to wait until the user edits before doing anything. That way, we can save time not dealing with names that never edit, and we can get a better sense of the user's intentions from their contributions. Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Since my opinion was solicited here, I would say as soon as they make an edit that indicates they are trying to represent an organization, report, don’t warn. Reporting WP:ORGNAMEs is the tool of first resort. They get “soft” blocked and allowed to try again. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Fuqudik
 * Sounds likes offensive but If the user is contributing in good faith, then I would will not take any action but warn in their talk page. If the user is vandalizing, I would immediately report to WP:UAA without warning.
 * ✅ Yeah, it could never hurt to begin by discussing, especially if they are contributing in good faith (to avoid WP:BITE issues). However, if it's clearly bad faith, then report to WP:UAA. Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * ColesStaff
 * Promotional User name because the user begins claiming they are Coles staff. First I will warn in his/her talk page, if the user ignore my warning and being promote and advertise about Coles then I will report at UAA.
 * As before, wait until the user edits before deciding to report. If they are clearly advertising, a warning is typically unnecessary. Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Bobsysop
 * Misleading username because usernames that give the impression that the account has permissions which it does not have. In this case, I will report immediately to WP:UAA.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Bieberisgay
 * Disruptive or offensive usernames because the user is trolling about Justin Bieber. In this case, I report immediately to WP:UAA
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * JohnBot
 * Usernames which could be easily misunderstood to refer to a"bot". If this account is not bot but edits like normal user. Then I will report at UAA.
 * ✅ Make sure you wait until the user edits before deciding to report. If the user is editing in good faith, in may be a good idea to discuss first before blocking to avoid WP:BITE. Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Sidiqsazad02
 * Misleading username because the user is trying to pretend me. In this case, I will report immediately to WP:UAA.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * My task is complete. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001       04:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good work. Please let me know whether you have questions about our work so far. As a side note, I noticed on your user page, you have the userbox , which states that you are a native speaker of English (meaning your first language was English). However, based on my interactions with you, I'm not sure whether you truly have a native understanding of English. The Babel template allows you specify the degree to which you know the language on a scale from 0 to 5:
 * means you don't understand English
 * means you have a basic understanding of English
 * means you have an intermediate understanding of English
 * means you have an advanced understanding of English
 * means you have a near-native understanding of English
 * means you have a professional understanding of English.
 * means that English is your native language
 * Do you think you could amend your user page appropriately or otherwise clarify how much you understand English? Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001       05:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for removing these things. Because these codes was created bug on every section that makes block to editing section. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001       05:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I didn't realize that I had caused the "edit" buttons next to the section headers to disappear. After some fiddling around, I've managed to fix this issue. Mz7 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Progress test
Congratulations, now have mastered the "basics" so we can move on. Please complete the following progress test, and I'll tell you what's next.

The following 3 scenarios each have 5 questions that are based on WP: VANDAL, WP:3RR, WP: REVERT, WP: BLOCK, WP: GAIV, WP: WARN, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, and WP:UN. Good Luck!

Scenario 1
You encounter an IP vandalising Justin Bieber by adding in statements that he is gay. A: Well, I would consider this a vandalism edit. Because It is clearly adding deliberately false information to a biographical article about a living person.
 * Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A: It is breaching WP:BLPSOURCES under WP:BLP policy.
 * Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it breaching?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A: An appropriate warning template to be tagged on the IP's user talk page is uw-vandalism1 or uw-vandalism2.
 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the IP's user talk page?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A: No I can't be blocked because I reverted edits that constitutes vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines WP:3RRBLP
 * The user has now added offensive words to the article 3 times. You have reverted three times already, can you be blocked for violating the three revert rule in this case?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A: I would use IPvandal template for reporting the user.
 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A: Using Twinkle, I would be tagging the page, Justin Bieber and the reason would be "Vandalism after final (level 4 or 4im) warning given".
 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Scenario 2
You see a new account called "Hi999" that has added random letters to one article. A: This is considered a test edit, but not vandalism.
 * Would this be considered vandalism or a good faith edit, why?
 * ✅ This is a good intuition. Oftentimes, random letters is someone trying to see whether they can really edit the page, which is a form of good faith editing, in my view. If the user continues doing it despite a warning, that's when it might cross the line into vandalism. Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A: An appropriate warning template is uw-test1 for first time.
 * What would be an appropriate warning template to place on the user's talk page?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A: I will use Rollback-AGF (Green) option for assume good faith.
 * Which of the following Twinkle options should be used to revert these edits: Rollback-AGF (Green), Rollback (Blue) or Rollback-Vandal (Red)?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A: Well, If the user has a level 3 warning on their talk page and make a vandal edit again then I would give level 4 warning. If the user make a vandal edit again then I would give level 4im warning and I will report the user to WP:AIV. But sometime AIV frequently becomes backlogged with reports of users that are vandalism-only accounts, even without warning. So I would limit myself only to vandals.
 * The user now has a level 3 warning on their talk page. They make a vandal edit, would it be appropriate to report this user to AIV? Why or why not?
 * Could it also be appropriate to report to WP:AIV immediately after the level 3 warning, with no further warnings? Mz7 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A: Vandalism-only accounts are typically blocked indefinitely.
 * If this user keeps on vandalizing, can this user be blocked indef.?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A: vandal should be used in this case.
 * Which of the following reporting templates should be used in this case: IPvandal or vandal?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A: I would report the user with reason is a vandal only account user.
 * What would you include as the reason for reporting the editor?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Scenario 3
You see a new account called "LaptopsInc" which has created a new page called "Laptops Inc" (which only contains the words "Laptops Inc" and a few lines of text copied from the company's website). The user also added "www.laptopsinc.com" on the Laptop article. You research Laptops Inc on Google and find that is a small company. A: In Twinkle, I would revert the edit using the rollback option.
 * Should you revert the edit to Laptop, if so which Twinkle option would you use?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A: I would use uw-spam1 or uw-advert1, depend on the case.
 * If you do revert which warning template would you use?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A: I would use the G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion tag and G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement tag.
 * Would you tag the article they created with a speedy deletion tag(s). If so which speedy deletion criteria apply to the article?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A: Using Twinkle, I will tag CSDs and it will also automatically notify page creators. If it does not work for some reason, then I notify the user manualy by putting Page Name on the user talk page.
 * Would you leave a template on the user's talk page regarding their username? If so which one and with which parameters?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A: I would report to UAA as Promotional names.
 * Would you report the user to UAA? If so what of the four reasons does it violate?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Specific questions
Prior to taking this course you had your rollback right revoked for misuse. Please go back through your contribution history and find at least 3 instances where you used rollback inappropriately, and explain why they were inappropriate and what you would do if you had rollback today. (Hint: the administrator who revoked your right left some feedback on your talk page.) Mz7 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you mean explain here? Siddiqsazzad001       20:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, Mz7 (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * - This revision was properly inappropriate. Because the previous revision was properly good faith, that user just added last aired date before air off.


 * - This revision was properly inappropriate. Because the previous edit was good faith but WP:TVCAST issues which had to be removed by manually with explanation in the summary.
 * - This revision was also properly inappropriate. Because the IP User had added information and I had reverted this revision without any reason.

Before revoked, I have not knowledge about the Counter Vandalism Unit. But now I have mastered about the basics of the Counter Vandalism Unit. If I had rollback right then I would use this flag with proper way. I should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits. I should never be used to edit war. If I wanted to leave an edit summary, then I will use Twinkle rollback. I would use Huggle carefully, using my common sense. - Siddiqsazzad001       16:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Task complete. - Siddiqsazzad001       16:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've started reviewing your responses, but while doing so, I noticed an issue that I'm now concerned about. While preparing your responses for this test, did you look at the CVUA page of another student of mine? Some of your responses are strangely similar to theirs. Mz7 (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I should probably specify that this is probably not a big deal :P – I guess I never said this wasn't allowed, and the information is all publicly available anyway. In the future, just make sure that your responses are your own. Mz7 (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I am disappointed about blaming on me. I am just following Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. Siddiqsazzad001       03:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but please understand that I wouldn't have brought it up if I wasn't sure there was an issue. At least four of your responses contain phrases that are word for word the same as feedback that I left for a former CVUA student on the same questions. It is simply too unlikely to have happened by chance. It is okay (and encouraged) to quote Wikipedia policies and guidelines in your responses, preferably with quotation marks, but it's not okay to look at other people's test answers. Mz7 (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have completed my feedback. I just have one follow-up question above before we move on to the next assignment. Mz7 (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok. Siddiqsazzad001       13:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Rollback
Congratulations now for the next step. The rollback user right allows trusted and experienced vandalism fighters to revert vandalism with the click of one button. Please read WP:Rollback.

A: Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only but not good faith edits and never be used to edit war.
 * Describe when the rollback button may be used and when it may not be used.

A: If I accidentally use rollback then I would revert my edit immediately with using undo button and state in the edit summary that "This edit was accidental use of rollback".
 * What should you do if you accidentally use rollback?

A: My answer is no. Because rollback hasn't the edit summary feature. But Twinkle has that feature. We can use Twinkle rollback button if we want to leave an edit summary.
 * Should you use rollback if you want to leave an edit summary?


 * How to install STiki application? Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001       04:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You can use STiki by downloading it at WP:STiki, then double-clicking the .JAR file that is downloaded. You will need to have Java installed, I believe. You don't need to have rollback rights to use STiki, just 1000 article edits.
 * Your responses to the rollback section are satisfactory, and I believe rollback rights can be returned to you at this time with the understanding that if you misuse the tool again, it may be revoked again, and it will be very difficult to regain the trust for the rights if this happens. Although I am an administrator, I generally let another administrator review your work and grant the right independently, so if you wish to regain rollback rights, you should reapply at Requests for permissions/Rollback. Mz7 (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Monitoring period
Congratulations! You have completed the main section of the anti-vandalism course. Well done! Now that we've been through everything that you need to know as a vandal patroller, you will be given a 7-day monitoring period. During this time, you are free to revert vandalism (and edit Wikipedia) as you normally do; I will monitor your progress in anti-vandalism. If there are any issues, I will raise them with you and if you have any problems, you are free to ask me. After seven days, if I am satisfied with your progress, you will take the final test; passing this will mean you graduate from the CVUA. Good luck!

If you have any problems or trouble along the way please leave a message on my talk page. If you make any difficult decisions feel free to post the diff below and I'll take a look. Mz7 (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

7-days over :) - Siddiqsazzad001       16:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm currently busy with work and only have time for a few quick edits. I'll review your edits later this week. Thanks for your patience, Mz7 (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Same with me. Because my exam is going to start from 10 May. Thank you and try it soon. Siddiqsazzad001      03:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * We are getting late. Please start the process. Siddiqsazzad001       19:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yessir, apologies for the delay. Mz7 (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * On your user talk page, a concern was brought up that this was an inappropriate use of rollback. I'm inclined to agree; Alexanderlee is an experienced editor, and I highly doubt he'd vandalize Wikipedia intentionally. I'm also inclined to say you were wrong too. The subject clearly had a foreign-language name, so something that might be offensive in English might not necessarily be offensive in the other language. Do you have any response to this? Mz7 (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't have knowledge about Korean culture name. That's why I keep quiet. Siddiqsazzad001       08:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * With respect, you didn't really "keep quiet", you went ahead and reverted it and defended your revert when challenged. It is the fact that you don't see it as a mistake that worries me. Mz7 (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * : good job recognizing this was a mistake. Mz7 (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For the most part, I am seeing good things; you're restricting yourself solely to obvious vandalism. Mz7 (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I've posted your final exam below. Do not look at the final exams of past CVUA students for answers. If your answers are identical in wording to past students' answers, you will not pass this course. Mz7 (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Final Exam
When responding to numbered questions please start your response with "#:" (except where shown otherwise - with **). You don't need to worry about signing your answers.

GOOD LUCK!

Part 1 (25%)

 * For each of these examples, please state whether you would call the edit(s) described as vandalism or good faith edit, a reason for that, and how you would deal with the situation (ensuring you answer the questions where applicable).
 * 1) A user inserts 'ektgbi0hjndf98' into an article. What would you do if it was their first warning? What about after that.
 * Well, this is a test edit. So my will be uw-test1 and after that uw-test2.
 * ✅ I also tend to call random gibberish test edits at first. Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds their signature to an article after one being given a Uw-articlesig warning. What would you the next time they did it? What about if they kept doing it after that?
 * If they did next time then I would give uw-vandalism2 warning. If they kept doing it after that then I would give uw-vandalism3 and after that uw-vandalism4. If they again vandal then I will report at WP:AIV.
 * Good. I would probably leave a more customized note in this case, since it might not be totally obvious that adding a signature is vandalism. Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds 'John Smith is the best!' into an article. What would you do the first time? What about if they kept doing it after that?
 * First time, I will revert this edit as WP:AGF and I will give uw-npov1 and if they kept doing it after that then uw-npov2, uw-npov3 and uw-npov4. If they again do this then I will report at AIV
 * If the article is about someone named John Smith, then the NPOV warning is appropriate. If the article has nothing to do with John Smith, I would say this is probably vandalism, as opposed to a good-faith NPOV violation. Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds 'I can edit this' into an article. The first time, and times after that?
 * This edit is a test edit. First I will add uw-test1 and welcome the user. After that I will add uw-test2.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user removes sourced information from an article, with the summary 'this is wrong'. First time, and after that? What would be different if the user has a history of positive contributions compared with a history of disruptive contributions?
 * First I will check the source, if the source is reliable then I will revert this edit. If they do that again then I will warn on their with uw-disruptive1. I think discussion is the better way.
 * ✅ Good. Checking the source is a great first instinct. I would recommend leaving customized notes over templated messages in cases like this where the template doesn't address the problem specifically. Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Part 2 (15%)

 * Which templates warning would give an editor in the following scenarios. If you don't believe a template warning is appropriate outline the steps (for example what you would say) you would take instead.
 * 1) A user blanks Cheesecake.
 * uw-blank1
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user trips edit filter for trying to put curse words on Derek Jeter.
 * uw-attempt2
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user trips edit summary filter for repeating characters on Denis Menchov.
 * uw-efsummary
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user puts "CHRIS IS GAY!" on Atlanta Airport.
 * uw-vandalism2 (depend on past warnings)
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user section blanks without a reason on David Newhan.
 * uw-delete1
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds random characters to Megan Fox.
 * uw-test1
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds 'Tim is really great' to Great Britain.
 * uw-npov1
 * If there is a Tim mentioned in the article, then an NPOV warning is appropriate. Otherwise, this is probably vandalism. Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds 'and he has been arrested' to Tim Henman.
 * uw-unsourced1
 * {{subst:uw-biog1}} might be better in this case. Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had no warnings or messages from other users.
 * uw-vandalism4
 * ✅ {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} is also appropriate. Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user blanks Personal computer, for the fifth time, they have had four warnings including a level 4 warning.
 * uw-vandalism4im after that I will report at WP:AIV
 * You should report to WP:AIV immediately, without warning the user any further. A level 4im is not a fifth warning level that you give after level 4, but a first warning that you give before any other warnings. Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user blanks your userpage and replaced it with 'I hate this user' (you have had a number of problems with this user in the past).
 * uw-vandalism4im (depend on past warnings)
 * ✅ This can also be considered harassment, so feel free to contact an administrator about such a user if you feel threatened. Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A user adds File:Example.jpg to Taoism.
 * uw-test1
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Part 3 (10%)

 * What CSD tag you would put on the following articles (The content below is the article's content).
 * 1) Check out my Twitter page (link to Twitter page)!
 * Unambiguous advertising or promotion - WP:G11
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Josh Marcus is the coolest kid in London.
 * I don't see any significant subject so I would put WP:A7
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Joe goes to [[England]] and comes home !
 * No context - WP:A1
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A Smadoodle is an animal that changes colors with its temper.
 * Fake information, This is a blatant hoax. WP:G3
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Fuck Wiki!
 * Pure vandalism - WP:G3
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

What would you do in the following circumstance:
 * A user blanks a page they very recently created.
 * I will tag WP:G7, because a blank article is not valid for Wikipedia.
 * ✅ This works if no other editor has substantively edited the page. Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * After you have speedy delete tagged this article the author removes the tag but leaves the page blank.
 * I will revert that edit and I will send them massage with full explanation, because removal speedy deletion tag is not a solution.
 * ✅ Discussion is always a good start to finding a solution. You should explain why the tag is there and whether they really want the article deleted. Some alternative solutions, if they do not want an article deleted, is to move the article to the draft space or to their user space. Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Part 4 (10%)

 * Are the following new (logged in) usernames violations of the username policy? Describe why or why not and what you would do about it (if they are a breach).
 * 1) TheMainStreetBand
 * Promotional name - WP:CORPNAME. I will report immediately at WP:UAA.
 * ✅ I would report to WP:UAA immediately especially if the user is actively writing about a band called the Main Street Band. However, leaving a warning message is also acceptable if it isn't clear whether this is an actual band name. Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Poopbubbles
 * No major issue found but depend on contribution.
 * ✅ I think you're right that the key is to look at the account's contributions. If they are good contributions, then this username might be okay if the user really insists on it. Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Brian's Bot
 * If this user is not bot then I will report at WP:UAA as Misleading username.
 * ✅ And if it is a bot, then it must be approved at WP:BRFA before it can be used. Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) sdadfsgadgadjhm,hj,jh,jhlhjlkfjkghkfuhlkhj
 * If this user contribute in any article then I will report at WP:UAA as Disruptive user name.
 * ✅ Keyboard mash usernames do make it hard for editors to collaborate, but they are not necessarily against policy, I think, so I would look at the user's contributions and if they are good, maybe start a conversation with the user before reporting, but other administrators may disagree with me on this. Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Bobsysop
 * Pretend to be admin. It is a misleading username. I will report immediately at WP:UAA.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 12:12, 23 June 2012
 * WP:UNCONF user name, I don't have see it before. It is like signature date.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) PMiller
 * No issue found. Depend on conribution.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) OfficialJustinBieber
 * If this is only about Official then I will consider as Promotional user name but its about Justin Bieber so it will be Misleading username. I will report at WP:UAA
 * ✅ It would likely be a uw-ublock-famous. Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Part 5 (10%)

 * Answer the following questions based on your theory knowledge gained during your instruction.
 * 1) Can you get in an edit war while reverting vandalism (which may or may not be obvious)?
 * No, I can't get in an edit war while reverting vandalism. According to WP:3RRNO: Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
 * Yes, but I think this answer lacks depth. The key for WP:3RRNO is that the vandalism must be obvious – any reasonable person should be able to look at the edit and agree that it was intentionally submitted to harm Wikipedia. If the vandalism is not obvious, then you could get in trouble for edit warring, which is why you should always play it safe and start communicating when you think a situation might not be obvious. Mz7 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Where and how should vandalism-only accounts be reported?
 * We should report at WP:AIV by using Twinkle.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Where and how should complex abuse be reported?
 * In WP:ANI, we can report about incidents.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Where and how should blatant username violations be reported?
 * We should report at WP:UAA by using Twinkle.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Where and how should personal attacks against other editors be reported?
 * In WP:ANI, we can report about personal attack against other.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Where and how should an edit war be reported?
 * We should report at WP:AN3.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Where and how should ambiguous violations of WP:BLP be reported?
 * We should report at WP:BLPN.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Part 6 - Theory in practice (30%)

 * 1. Find and revert three instances of vandalism (by different editors on different pages), and appropriately warn the editor. Please give the diffs the warning below.
 * 1) Revert and Warning - I gave him only warning because his past contribution are full with vandalism but ClueBot NG gave him just first warning.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Revert and Warning - Pure vandalism
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Revert and Warning - Pure vandalism.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 2. Find and revert two good faith edits, and warn/welcome the user appropriately. Please give the diffs of your warn/welcome below.
 * 1) Revert and Welcome - All the word was bold.
 * ✅ It was in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Bold looks like this. Mz7 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Revert and Softly warn - per WP:CRYSTAL
 * ✅ I like that you left a customized message rather than a template. Mz7 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 3. Correctly report two users (either AIV or ANI). Give the diffs of your report below.
 * 1) Reported - This account is being used only for vandalism.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Reported - Vandalism after final warning
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 4. Correctly request the protection of two articles; post the diffs of your requests below.
 * 1) diff -pp-vandalism
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) diff -  Persistent vandalism.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 5. Correctly nominate one articles for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nominations below.
 * 1) diffs -  WP:A7 : No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 6. Correctly report one username as a breache of policy.
 * 1) diffs - Violation of the username policy as a promotional username.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Completion
Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy on your successful completion of my CVUA instruction. You completed your final exam with 91.8%; well done and congratulations again.

As a graduate you are entitled to display the following userbox (make sure you replace your enrollee userbox) as well as the graduation message posted on your talk page (this can be treated the same as a barnstar). :