Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:here is the fifth,again started by User Cirt . ] (]) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
:here is the fifth,again started by User Cirt . ] (]) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
::What exactly does Cirt's behaviour have to do with your edit warring? You do know that you don't need to violate the 3RR rule to be considered to be edit warring right? I am glad you have stopped. I am considering you to be fully aware of our edit warring policy in the future Off2, and will not be considering warnings to be needed in the future. ] 20:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
::What exactly does Cirt's behaviour have to do with your edit warring? You do know that you don't need to violate the 3RR rule to be considered to be edit warring right? I am glad you have stopped.
::I am considering you to be fully aware of our edit warring policy in the future Off2, and will not be considering warnings to be needed in the future. You gave me your word that you would not edit war as a condition of your last unblock, given that you have not kept this word I will not be extending that offer next time you are blocked. ] 20:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: Sometimes people post uncivil comments on my page. If you don't wish to be exposed to them simply add this line to your monobook.css:
.uncivil {background-color:black;}
Criteria
The result.
The criteria used by RickBot is "Administrators who have not edited in at least 2 months." This seems to make it hard to figure out activity levels, since to find them for a point in time, you have to get all admins' edits and then figure out whose was at least 2 months before that date. MBisanz16:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I just happen to have a mysql database with a complete list of when every admin made every edit. It saves all sorts of time. Chillum16:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Though it does not include all of the ex-admins... Do you know where I can get a complete list people who were once an admin? Chillum17:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The user rights log is inconsistent. I will scan every delete, protection, or block action and take all of those usernames. Admins who have never used their tools will not be included but that is fine. Chillum18:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, this is a bit harder than I thought. It seems there is not consistent log of when people became or stopped being admins. I need to gather the info from 3 sources: Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrat log which has the early sysopings, the en.wikipedia user rights logs that shows +sysops from after then, and http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/api.php which will have -sysops as well as some rare +sysops. Once I build a full list of admins by scanning all admin actions every taken I can gather the needed info for each admin. Chillum19:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I will try to graph this nicely sometime later, I think it will need a logarithmic scale as deletes are so much more common than other actions. Chillum23:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
HBC namewatcher bot, feature request
Hey -- I've noticed a number of WP:UAA reports lately that are "homophones" that look far less concerning than the underlying rule. For instance, I had to add "security" to the whitelist because "curit" is a homophone for "cunt". I was thinking, one way to reduce this kind of thing would be for the bot to treat homophone rules as if they had WAIT_TILL_EDIT: so a username including "cunt" would get reported right away but a username with "curit" would only get reported if they edit. Mangojuice17:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The WAIT_TILL_EDIT flag should work with HOMOGLYPH. The blacklist could be edited for patterns that should wait until an edit. I don't think the options should be tied together by default. I admit I did not put much thought to my addition of the homoglyph flags to the blacklist items. The homoglyph table itself may need some culling. I really left the configuration open ended for the community to work out, so be bold in adjusting it. Chillum19:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I really don't agree but I'm not going to revert. There's too much targeting of the messenger going on, methinks, and it is hardly a case of my being alone with a view. I've seen you about a bit but don't think we've interacted much; your page has not been on my watchlist, so I guess I've never commented here. Interesting graph above; saw the others, too.
Fair enough. I assume you are referring to the AfD talk page. Be be straight, I don't really have any opinion on the content of the message, I do think the venue was not appropriate though. Perhaps user talk page or one of the dispute resolution areas would be more appropriate. I hope the quake was not too damaging. Chillum20:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the core issues are about AfD and that page is for that area; however, other pages are more appropriate (and some have been tried). The quake seems to have killed no one; it was 60km offshore, south of Bali. A friend's TV did crash to the floor from a wall bracket. Volcanic archipelago really should redirect to Indonesia as we've about 40% of the world's volcanoes; see List of volcanoes in Indonesia. Sincerely, Jack Merridew04:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
That user was blocked due to an arbcom sanction enforcement. Law was incorrect to unblock CoM and I have no intention of contributing to that mistake. It is not appropriate for an admin to reverse an arbcom based admin action before arbcom has had time to review the action. Chillum17:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
As long as he's not threatening anyone, 'tis easier to ignore the usepage. Sure wouldn't want to see a fella get barred from his homepage. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
He has since then (recently) chosen to engage in edit-warring again. Examples:
Off2riorob has been blocked seven times in the past, six of those for disruptive editing, the most recent being the three-week block of 21 August 2009. Cirt (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I have not broken the 3 revert rule and I was discussing the situation a lot, I was warned on my talkpage and did not edit the dispute after that, The discussion is over a catagory of half blind which I nominated for deletion and which is also under discussion as we speak. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
As regards to my previous blocks this User Cirt can in no way be seen to not be involved in my block record.
Five times I have been named at ANI, everytime I have been brought there it has been opened by User Cirt. first ever report at ani, by cirt
What exactly does Cirt's behaviour have to do with your edit warring? You do know that you don't need to violate the 3RR rule to be considered to be edit warring right? I am glad you have stopped.
I am considering you to be fully aware of our edit warring policy in the future Off2, and will not be considering warnings to be needed in the future. You gave me your word that you would not edit war as a condition of your last unblock, given that you have not kept this word I will not be extending that offer next time you are blocked. Chillum20:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
User talk:HighInBC: Difference between revisions
Add topic
_by_Ron.jpg){kind=small}
