User:DanielDeibler

Best Wikipedia system message received to date

Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 5373561 seconds may not appear in this list.

For the record, that's more than two months. That's an awfully slow server.

This user is a recent changes patroller. This user uses Huggle to deal with vandalism. This user has beaten ClueBot NG to reverting vandalism. >:-PThis user tattles on vandals. vn-23This user page has been vandalized 23 times. vn-32This user's talk page has been vandalized 32 times. 3,900+This user has made more than 3,900 contributions to Wikipedia.

Vandalism awards

Note: Winning one of these awards often is accompanied by being blocked from editing.

• Best letter swap - Large Hadron Collider
• Best unblock request reason - User talk:65.0.160.81
• Most thought-provoking - Causes of landslides
• Most vulgar - Talk:Mariah Carey
• Worst vandalism by an administrator - User talk:82.2.217.135

DanielDeibler's guide to combating vandalism

Do not take this seriously. Follow all Wikipedia guidelines for combating vandalism. If you follow certain suggestions in this "guide", then you could potentially get rollback removed from your account.

General Tips

• If you don't already have rollback on your account, then get it.
• Use tools like Huggle and Twinkle to make life a whole lot easier.

How to Identify Vandalism Using Huggle

• If the edit was made to an article for a middle school or high school, then revert it. Don't even look at it. Trust me, it's vandalism.
• The same applies to any edit made to an article about any of the following:
  • Jesus/Pope/Virgin Mary/etc.
  • Beauty/Sex/Obesity/etc.
  • Or the day's featured article
• Otherwise, to identify whether or not an edit is vandalism, the following are helpful:
  • If the edit lists, redirects to, or otherwise mentions Barack Obama, it's vandalism.
  • If the edit removes large portions of the article, they're probably just in the process of moving stuff around, but you should revert it anyway, to teach them the purpose of edit summaries.
  • As crazy as it may sound, when someone replaces the contents of a page with "fag" or "nigger", it's usually not a good faith edit.
  • Census and similar statistical information from 10 years ago doesn't change.
  • If the edit replaces someone's name with a name eerily similar to the user's name, it's vandalism.
  • No, that sentence wasn't missing the word "penis".
  • If the edit adds apparently missing information about someone's sexual orientation, it's vandalism.

More to come...