994:
fixing (some updates, then due for retesting), 4/ ambiguity fix to template ("date" might be start or end date), 5/ status and response messages to users much improved for clarity, 6/ context issue noted above by SQL is stated to be believed fixed, 7/ Bot now watches for "blpwatch" in edit summaries and checks + auto monitors the article (and reports in any event for clarity) if relevant, and so on. Bot has already been instruumental is spotting a subtle disruption editor on a BLP that was not otherwise noticed. Testing continues.
294:..." etc). A user who is approved for reverts can type !revert 1234, and if that is the most current edit, it will be reverted with their name in the edit summary. That's because if a vandalistic edits is identifiable by edit summary, then simplicity is useful. It does not excuse a user from responsibility for the revert, but if a user is responsible and experienced, then the ability to revert a bad edit quickly will allow them to help watch BLP risks more efficiently.
391:
VANDALISM ADDED BY USER ON WHEELS!!" (or whatever vandals and slur-artists write) being a bona fide edit are slim... especially if the first is on an article where the bot reports from the tag that the main risk is "homosexual slur vandalism". A user trusted with a quick revert option will also be expected not to use it except in clear cases. It would of course always also be attributed in the edit summary to a specific, named, on-wiki user.
494:
336:
range that for some reason is not blocked, and many times vandalism or pov editing/defamation will be accompanied by an edit summary "JOSH IS GAY!!!" or "NO THIS LEGAL MATERIAL IS IMPORTANT AND MUST BE KEPT!". There is no obligation to use revert, nor is it given to everyone. But undeniably there are cases a decision can be made quickly. Others, not so. The expectation is those given that access have a clue.
1225:
601:
1005:
first antivandal bots were released, there was widespread concerns regarding them, that are somewhat identical to those being expressed regarding BLPbot (granted, of course, BLP monitoring is more complex than simply vandal reversions). Vandalism bots are now routine in the course of counter-vandalism. This bot is going to fill a useful role on-Wiki, and I support its introduction.
910:. The idea is that an experienced editor can sometimes -- not always, but possibly quite often - tell what is a problematic edit for a BLP. Simple vandalism, edit summary slurs, and childish comments in edit summaries, often happen and an edit summary that says "JOHN SMITH IS A PEN1S ON WHEELS!" is unlikely to need looking at, to decide it's probably not a useful edit.........
276:
automatically gets delisted at that point; if there is vandalism then the bot can be told to update the end-time of the monitoring for 3 months from that date. As such it's not the same as OTRS, because any user can tag, any user can help watch, and it is intended to be used on any page with a blp concern, not just the ones specifically brought to OTRS attention.
195:. Users who are using the revert functionality will be individually approved. The bot also automatically removes the template after three months monitoring, though any user may add or extend monitoring for a three month period at any time, if necessary. De-monitoring of pages is also checked for and reported to the channel.
884:
Not sure if I'm allowed to post here, but I don't like this bot at all. Reverting edits without actually looking at the edit seems counterproductive. The idea that you can know that something is a BLP violation without actually looking at it seems ridiculous at best to me and the fact that I'm unable
1004:
I'm largely in support of this bot account. It seems that an alternative approach to BLP monitoring is necessary, and this new proposal seems to satisfy that requirement quite well. There will always be concern over a robot account reverting edits without supervision. There always has been: when the
335:
Second, it is restricted; those who use it, if they do not exercise good judgement, will have it removed. Lastly, a wide range of vandalism can be very effectively identified by edit summary (otherwise rollback would be unhelpful). For example, a given BLP may be exclusively vandalized by a given IP
962:
that ST47 was seeking to meet what seemed to be a valid users' criticizm arising, and he has since noted that consensus is very heavily against that, has put it back as it was, and has noted that if it were desired the capability could be used (but isn't presently). That's my reading of it. On this
647:
Having discussed, this is the idea that edits made by the bot during trial, should specifically note in its edit summary that the bot's on trial and that feedback is welcome (with a link). It sounds sensible. Also, I'm not sure that a 5 day trial will pick up many actual edits though so the second
597:
Sounds like most of the bugs have been dealt with (ST47, if you can, I would really, really, strongly recommend that you seperate the IRC context's, or at least, check what channel the data is coming from, but, I can't really see how this could be abused. But, that's how problems start...) Anyhow,
360:
To your second point, I would claim that, as a general principle any user who has seen only at the edit summary and (probably more likely) the username, should not revert it — unless the edit has been given an automatic edit summary, or it is blatant vandalism. This is part of giving a user's edit
993:
A number of significant updates have been made during the bot trial. In summary the most important ones are: 1/ !reason command is now also restricted, 2/ bot reports all edits made by or through it, to the channel, as a safeguard and as confirmation, 3/ much "sanitizing" of input and fringe case
369:
The other point I had, which I don't think I explained properly in my first message, is that the edits are done by a bot. For things like requests for adminship and arbitration, proxy editing such as this does not leave a paper trail under the user's contributions, and so it's harder to attribute
1104:
Isn't the bot in this case doing exactly the same thing that an user can accomplish by using the "undo" button? Dunno why this command can be issued on the first place, since editors can just revert the article themselves, just like this user did twice before the bot and once after it. (I assume
752:
Small suggestion, could the edit summary be changed so that it doesn't include details of the user who initiated the revert. The ability to completely invisibly remove vandalism and other undesirable edits in a very small number of cases is most desirable. The details of who initiated the revert
544:
a user who despite these did misuse those very limited functions (and really almost the worst they can do is revert a bot-specified RC edit) would be tracable/noticable in future, seen by many almost "on the spot", be questioned immediately and possibly also lose access very quickly... and that
184:
This bot maintains a list of pages (usually BLPs) tagged by volunteers as requiring monitoring, and transmits all edits of them to an IRC channel. Users in the IRC channel can instruct the bot to add or remove the tag from articles, revert certain edits, or change parameters to the template. The
919:
Also, note that the trusted users who have access to the bots revert command should not, and most probably are not, blindly reverting, no matter what the edit summary says. Yes, the bot does feed the edit summary into the channel, however, that is along with a link to the diff, for inspection,
534:
Werdna's not quite got an answer to his question. The issue stated is "bot edits will not reflect under a user's contributions for RFA and similar processes". My answer here is, the bot has very limited scope for editing. It cannot make "freeform" edits; it can merely revert a diff, or manage a
286:
To do so, it keeps a simple plain-text event log file on the server that records adds/removes, bot start/stops, and pages noticed to have been detagged while stopped, with date/time. The event log has read-only access to the world, to allow anyone who wishes to review such events (and check for
275:
way that articles at risk can be watched. A typical context is some less active biographical article that has had some vandalism, and having reverted we want to ensure the vandalism isn't put back 2 weeks later. So we monitor its edits for a 3 month period "to play safe". if all's good then it
976:). With the exception of the slightly misleading word "automatic" (it only acts on any occasion upon a specific manual command by a recognized user) the bot now uses proper edit summaries, including the user's on-wiki name, a link to the bot and its trial, and the edit summary they provided.
390:
sorts. Some BLPs will be at risk from addition of controversial uncited claims. But others may be at risk from blatent vandalism, or slur insertion. Where a BLP is blatently vandalized, it makes sense to provide a quick way to handle it. The odds of an edit summary "JOSH IS GAY!!!" or "PEN1S
515:
Werdna: It appears to me that FT2 has answered your question. If not, please restate the relevant parts so I can answer them. SQL: Approved users, based on irc cloak. The user must be logged in to IRC. The bot only accepts RC information where the user is 'rc!rc@*', which is the bot used on
329:
have a facility with that exact action on-wiki. Any user with rollback right, which all admins have and indeed many non-admins too, has been given a tool which allows reversion of edits based upon edit summary alone, with a link to the diff but no obligation to view
1089:
Here we actually have a problem with somebody who gave the bot a command to do that (see the edit summary), rather than with the bot itself. People who have access to these restricted commands need to know when they should and should not use the bot. -
1121:
I am rather worried by that edit. There was really no reason to use the bot to make that edit, and it seems to me that it was used solely to create a false sense of authority over the issue. That's surely not how the bot is supposed to be used, right?
620:
Also, given the task, could I ask something a little out-of-the-ordinary of you? Could you please link to this BRFA during the trial, in the edit summary, so long as the bot is operating until it is approved? (Request, not a requirement)
1164:
That's true, of course, and it's certainly not the bot's fault when it's not being used properly. But a newbie might see an edit by "BLPWatchBot" and shy away from reverting. That's probably a minor problem, tho, and a short note on
356:
To respond to your first point, I want to go back to the purpose of the bot. Rollback links on user contributions and history pages are there for mass-reversion of vandalism and the like — not something that comes up in BLPs
941:
I must stress that it is absolutely beyond the terms of the bot's approval for trial to fail to identify the user who initiated a revert in the edit summary. Wikis work because we have accountability. This breaks that. —
1034:
Could the bot attempt to provide a "micro-diff" on IRC so that users can get a sense of the content of the edit? (like e.g. Popups) - I'm aware this would be challenging since everything has to fit in ~400 output bytes.
830:
did) if there are privacy problems. If an edit is made, there needs to be a place where this edit can be discussed with the person who made that edit. Without (public) attribution, this would basically become a
562:
Well, we can make a public list of approved users if that would help give oversight into the users' edits using this bot. Also, I anticipate that a large number of those approved will already be administrators.
365:
it deserves. The purpose of this bot does not seem to be to revert blatant vandalism — it seems to be to watch for the addition of controversial uncited claims on articles on which this has previously been a
283:
to see tagged, with those that are, and reports any that are detagged to the channel too. (That's to prevent a vandal lurking in the channel, and waiting for a bot restart to click "save" on the tag deletion.)
1135:
I don't see a problem. When I'm on a better connection, I'll be looking for sceptre to make this bot's purpose more clear, however the user can be sanctioned for that edit just the same as any other edit.
718:. I did that with !tag User_talk:SQL test2. Does not even have to be an article, or a template. very abusable IMO. I didn't realize there were commands that cause edits, with no authentication required.
702:
Of especial interest is whether the bot is being appropriately and correctly used by those authorized to use it for reversion or tag modification, and any problems arising in usage. Note that bot
549:
be noticed at RFA and the like -- even assuming that somehow none of the many watching had posted a comment on their talk page at the time with a link to the diff asking them to explain it.
786:
I'm not sure this is such a good idea. in what situation is there a need to revert anonymously? Everyone should be able to see who did a revert (or any kind of edit, for that matter). --
693:
This bot is now under trial. Comments and feedback on the bot and its usage are welcomed below. Specific bugs or unexpected responses (which may well arise at times) may be reported at
1264:
1182:
There is definite (minor) concern here, and I see ST47 is aware, and will act accordingly (make the bots purpose clear with said editor). Thanks for bringing this to attention,
541:
there is a strong "trust and accountability" barrier to access (users must be trusted and individually given access; bot enforces accountability for each edit), and
1169:
that there's nothing official about the bot (or that every editor is still responsible for every edit they make, or something) would probably suffice, IMHO. --
634:
Also, I'd like to suggest that this trial be expanded up to 30 days, pending input on this task, if more feedback is needed, depending on how things work out
963:
one though I find myself with utterly the same view as Werdna and ceased doing any tests involving edits whatsoever, until it was switched back again.
203:
This requests partially dupicates the functionality of #wikimedia-otrs-watch channel. It, however, offers some new features. Here are a few questions:
290:
The way reverts will work is that when edits are listed on the channel, an edit # (internal to the bot) will be given for it (eg: "#1234 <page: -->
733:
Input to the !tag command will now be santized, requiring it to fit the format {{blpwatch|+}} - essentially, it must all be the template. --
386:
You might need to wait for ST47 to comment; I can only comment from a limited perspective so to speak. The aim is to watch at-risk BLPs of
349:
I think it's very important to consider the purpose of the bot when talking about this functionality. My understanding is that this bot is
246:
Reversions are done by command by a user to revert a certain edit on a certain article. The user who requested it is linked in the summary.
21:
867:
I would strongly suggest that the bot transparently say who is actually making each edit. I am fairly uncomfortable with it not doing so.
77:
1151:
1137:
287:
anomalies, adds, removes, etc) to do this via their browser at any time, and the log URL is given at request within the !info command.
72:
353:
for combatting vandalism, per-se (otherwise it would be VandalWatchBot) — rather, it is for watching biographies on living people.
1040:
1025:
1020:
Question - could the bot provide rollback links to IRC so that users can click to revert rather than having the bot revert? --
461:
Also, the bot has a small IRC Context leak. It'll take input from wherever, regardless of which IRC server it came from. See:
107:
605:
Approved for trial (5 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.
1214:
408:
92:
826:
Thanks. I'm still rather uncomfortable that this is possible at all, tho. Anyone can simply create a new account (like
581:
Works for me, zero reason not to say who; never really thought about it being private. it's on your talk page anyway.
815:
775:
740:
570:
523:
279:
As well as watching for adds and removes of the tag in the rc feed, on startup it compares the list of articles it
256:
125:
768:
I've implemented this. The reverter is still logged privately, so anyone who abuses the bot can be found out. --
1235:
1195:
1177:
1159:
1145:
1130:
1114:
1099:
1080:
1061:
1044:
1029:
1013:
998:
980:
967:
953:
929:
914:
899:
875:
862:
843:
821:
803:
794:
781:
762:
746:
726:
652:
642:
629:
614:
585:
576:
557:
529:
508:
486:
473:
455:
441:
425:
395:
381:
340:
319:
302:
262:
233:
1155:
1141:
220:
What do you mean by "revert certain edits"? Edits matching some pattern? Or simply respond to an IRC command?
148:
A bot to help watch activity on at-risk BLPs that have previously been mis-edited, or are anticipated to be.
535:
specific hardcoded tag. A user who misuses this will not have their edits on their contribs, it's true. But
87:
1232:
808:
Switched back off, but enabled for users who request it for anonymity. It is still logging all reverts. --
82:
1110:
1076:
694:
67:
211:
189:
937:
If that's the case, then they can click "rollback" on the diff link, and there's no need for the bot.
431:
I've put up a link to this request on the
Community bulletin board, let's see what others will say.
308:
I don't like the idea of allowing users to revert edits without even looking at them, with a bot. —
1036:
1021:
674:
1068:
Does this bot really go and reduce article content by 95% just like that, with no checking? see
1191:
1095:
925:
1183:
1166:
1106:
1072:
949:
421:
377:
315:
48:
885:
to actually tell who is making the edits is annoying to say the least. This is a horrible,
1174:
1127:
840:
791:
362:
812:
772:
758:
737:
567:
520:
253:
122:
17:
906:
See above for full discussion. This is one of the areas trialled, to see how it works
493:
1258:
1059:
959:
873:
832:
724:
640:
627:
612:
506:
484:
471:
453:
447:
What form of access control does the bot use, to prevent possibly unwanted reverts?
1187:
1091:
921:
598:
I'd like to see this in action. Whenever you're ready, please start a short trial.
944:
891:
854:
432:
416:
372:
310:
224:
249:
It lives on #wikipedia-en-blpwatch. The channel is currently open to anyone. --
1170:
1123:
836:
787:
478:
NM, in playing with the bot, it clearly appears to use hostname recognition.
827:
809:
769:
754:
734:
564:
517:
250:
119:
852:
I don't like that it doesn't show the user in the edit summary, either. --
1054:
1006:
995:
977:
964:
911:
868:
800:
719:
649:
635:
622:
607:
582:
554:
501:
479:
466:
448:
392:
337:
299:
142:
Perl, using, primarily, my
Perlwikipedia module and Poe::Component::IRC
1050:
1150:
I'm st47 on airport wifi, by the way, can't be bothered to log in.
223:
On which channel will it live? Will this channel open to everyone?
889:
idea for a bot. BLP issues should be approached sensitively. --
1243:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
753:
could instead be logged by the bot, available for inspection.
1231:
due to the anti-vandal like edits bot will run WITHOUT flag.
715:
The bot will add any text to any page, from any user. See:
1069:
973:
716:
682:
462:
102:
97:
62:
1249:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
414:
Issues have not yet been satisfactorily resolved. —
42:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
991:
Note in passing - updates to date during bot trial,
243:The bot reports to the channel for every removal.
36:The following discussion is an archived debate.
1105:there are cases where the command is useful) --
207:What will happen if a troll or vandal removes
8:
1265:Approved Knowledge bot requests for approval
706:is a different issue from loopholes in bot
217:from an article? Will the bot notice that?
1049:Actually, I suppose it could put it in a
155:(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run)
7:
663:Comments related to bot trial -: -->
370:that edit to that user reliably. —
240:Well, most editors aren't on OTRS.
28:
136:All edits are manually assisted.
1223:
599:
538:the scope for misuse is minimal,
492:
134:Automatic or Manually Assisted:
920:before any action is taken. -
271:The aim is to provide a quick
1:
325:Comments on this. First, we
1281:
1196:20:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1178:18:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1160:17:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1146:17:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1131:17:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1115:16:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1100:16:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1081:16:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
972:Edit summary now updated (
697:for fixing and discussion.
672:
442:11:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
426:10:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
396:13:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
382:12:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
341:06:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
320:03:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
303:20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
263:19:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
234:19:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
1062:12:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
1045:16:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
1030:15:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
1014:12:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
999:15:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
981:21:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
968:14:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
954:09:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
930:00:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
915:00:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
900:23:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
876:01:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
863:23:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
844:14:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
822:10:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
804:22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
795:21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
782:10:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
763:23:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
747:22:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
727:22:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
653:05:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
643:05:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
630:04:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
615:04:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
586:23:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
577:21:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
558:12:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
530:10:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
509:14:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
487:09:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
474:08:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
456:07:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
1246:Please do not modify it.
1236:19:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
140:Programming Language(s):
39:Please do not modify it.
178:N, flag not requested.
170:Already has a bot flag
695:User talk:BLPWatchBot
516:irc.wikimedia.org. --
293:<edit summary: -->
22:Requests for approval
164:Edit rate requested:
1215:BAGAssistanceNeeded
683:WP:BRFA-BLPWatchBot
648:point makes sense.
409:BAGAssistanceNeeded
363:fair consideration
292:<date/time: -->
820:
780:
745:
575:
528:
261:
182:Function Details:
146:Function Summary:
130:
1272:
1248:
1227:
1226:
1219:
1213:
1167:User:BLPWatchBot
1057:
1011:
960:safe to conclude
898:
896:
871:
861:
859:
818:
778:
743:
722:
685:
638:
625:
610:
603:
602:
573:
526:
504:
496:
482:
469:
451:
438:
413:
407:
259:
230:
216:
210:
194:
188:
128:
41:
1280:
1279:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1244:
1224:
1217:
1211:
1055:
1007:
892:
890:
869:
855:
853:
720:
689:
688:
681:
677:
671:
636:
623:
608:
600:
502:
480:
467:
449:
434:
411:
405:
226:
214:
208:
201:
192:
186:
166:5 epm, maximum
113:
52:
37:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1278:
1276:
1268:
1267:
1257:
1256:
1252:
1251:
1239:
1238:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1084:
1083:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1032:
1017:
1016:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
935:
934:
933:
932:
903:
902:
881:
880:
879:
878:
865:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
797:
750:
749:
730:
729:
712:
711:
699:
687:
686:
678:
673:
670:
667:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
552:
551:
550:
542:
539:
513:
512:
511:
476:
445:
444:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
367:
358:
354:
344:
343:
332:
331:
306:
305:
297:
296:
295:
288:
284:
277:
266:
265:
247:
244:
241:
237:
236:
221:
218:
200:
197:
152:Edit period(s)
112:
111:
105:
100:
95:
90:
85:
80:
75:
70:
65:
63:Approved BRFAs
60:
53:
51:
46:
45:
44:
32:
30:
27:
18:Knowledge:Bots
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1277:
1266:
1263:
1262:
1260:
1250:
1247:
1241:
1240:
1237:
1234:
1230:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1216:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1152:12.185.224.87
1149:
1148:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1138:12.185.224.87
1134:
1133:
1132:
1129:
1125:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1063:
1060:
1058:
1052:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1033:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1018:
1015:
1012:
1010:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
997:
992:
982:
979:
975:
971:
970:
969:
966:
961:
958:I think it's
957:
956:
955:
952:
951:
947:
946:
940:
939:
938:
931:
927:
923:
918:
917:
916:
913:
909:
905:
904:
901:
897:
895:
888:
883:
882:
877:
874:
872:
866:
864:
860:
858:
851:
845:
842:
838:
834:
829:
825:
824:
823:
817:
814:
811:
807:
806:
805:
802:
798:
796:
793:
789:
785:
784:
783:
777:
774:
771:
767:
766:
765:
764:
760:
756:
748:
742:
739:
736:
732:
731:
728:
725:
723:
717:
714:
713:
710:
709:
705:
700:
698:
696:
691:
690:
684:
680:
679:
676:
668:
666:
665:
654:
651:
646:
645:
644:
641:
639:
633:
632:
631:
628:
626:
619:
618:
617:
616:
613:
611:
606:
587:
584:
580:
579:
578:
572:
569:
566:
561:
560:
559:
556:
553:
548:
543:
540:
537:
536:
533:
532:
531:
525:
522:
519:
514:
510:
507:
505:
499:
495:
490:
489:
488:
485:
483:
477:
475:
472:
470:
464:
460:
459:
458:
457:
454:
452:
443:
440:
437:
430:
429:
428:
427:
424:
423:
419:
418:
410:
397:
394:
389:
385:
384:
383:
380:
379:
375:
374:
368:
364:
359:
357:particularly.
355:
352:
348:
347:
346:
345:
342:
339:
334:
333:
328:
324:
323:
322:
321:
318:
317:
313:
312:
304:
301:
298:
291:<user: -->
289:
285:
282:
278:
274:
270:
269:
268:
267:
264:
258:
255:
252:
248:
245:
242:
239:
238:
235:
232:
229:
222:
219:
213:
206:
205:
204:
198:
196:
191:
183:
179:
177:
174:
171:
167:
165:
161:
159:
156:
153:
149:
147:
143:
141:
137:
135:
131:
127:
124:
121:
117:
109:
106:
104:
101:
99:
96:
94:
91:
89:
86:
84:
81:
79:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
64:
61:
59:
55:
54:
50:
47:
43:
40:
34:
33:
31:
23:
19:
1245:
1242:
1228:
1210:
1008:
990:
989:
974:example edit
948:
943:
936:
907:
893:
886:
856:
833:role account
751:
707:
703:
701:
692:
662:
661:
604:
596:
546:
497:
446:
435:
420:
415:
404:
387:
376:
371:
350:
326:
314:
309:
307:
280:
272:
227:
202:
185:template is
181:
180:
175:
172:
169:
168:
163:
162:
157:
154:
151:
150:
145:
144:
139:
138:
133:
132:
115:
114:
57:
38:
35:
29:
1184:Enric Naval
1107:Enric Naval
1073:Enric Naval
908:in practice
799:Per Conti.
160:continuous
49:BLPWatchBot
199:Discussion
103:rights log
93:page moves
1229:Approved.
1037:Random832
1022:Random832
828:User:RTFA
669:Bot trial
116:Operator:
98:block log
1259:Category
1041:contribs
1026:contribs
887:horrible
675:Shortcut
366:problem.
273:informal
212:blpwatch
190:Blpwatch
73:contribs
20: |
1188:Rjd0060
1092:Rjd0060
1051:TinyURL
1009:Anthøny
922:Rjd0060
327:already
281:expects
945:Werdna
894:Naerii
857:Naerii
819:(st47)
779:(st47)
744:(st47)
708:coding
574:(st47)
527:(st47)
417:Werdna
373:Werdna
311:Werdna
260:(st47)
129:(st47)
1171:Conti
1124:Conti
837:Conti
813:ʎʇɹoɟ
810:uǝʌǝs
788:Conti
773:ʎʇɹoɟ
770:uǝʌǝs
738:ʎʇɹoɟ
735:uǝʌǝs
704:usage
664:below
568:ʎʇɹoɟ
565:uǝʌǝs
547:would
521:ʎʇɹoɟ
518:uǝʌǝs
498:Fixed
254:ʎʇɹoɟ
251:uǝʌǝs
173:(Y/N)
123:ʎʇɹoɟ
120:uǝʌǝs
78:count
16:<
1192:talk
1186:. -
1156:talk
1142:talk
1111:talk
1096:talk
1077:talk
1053:...
950:talk
926:talk
835:. --
759:talk
755:Nick
463:here
422:talk
378:talk
361:the
316:talk
108:flag
88:logs
68:talk
58:BRFA
1056:SQL
996:FT2
978:FT2
965:FT2
912:FT2
870:SQL
801:FT2
721:SQL
650:FT2
637:SQL
624:SQL
609:SQL
583:FT2
555:FT2
503:SQL
481:SQL
468:SQL
450:SQL
433:Max
393:FT2
388:all
351:not
338:FT2
330:it.
300:FT2
225:Max
83:SUL
1261::
1218:}}
1212:{{
1194:)
1158:)
1144:)
1122:--
1113:)
1098:)
1079:)
1071:--
1043:)
1035:--
1028:)
928:)
816:ʇs
776:ʇs
761:)
741:ʇs
571:ʇs
563:--
524:ʇs
500:)
465:.
439:em
412:}}
406:{{
257:ʇs
231:em
215:}}
209:{{
193:}}
187:{{
126:ʇs
118:--
1233:β
1190:(
1175:✉
1173:|
1154:(
1140:(
1128:✉
1126:|
1109:(
1094:(
1075:(
1039:(
1024:(
924:(
841:✉
839:|
792:✉
790:|
757:(
491:(
436:S
228:S
176::
158::
110:)
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.